On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: >> >>> Marsha to Andre: >>> >>> Maybe no more an authority than anyone else that has read ZMM and LILA. Or >>> do claim that your judgements are privileged above others for some reason. >>> >>> Andre: >>> I used the term 'authority' because you used it. My 'judgements' are based >>> on the >>> Annotations in LC (which clarify specific parts of ZMM and LILA), >>> specifically >>> annotations 129,130,131,132,133 and 135. >>> >>> When you read them carefully there is very little room for 'personal >>> judgements' nor >>> 'interpretations' nor 'personal opinions'. They are pretty straightforward >>> comments/ >>> clarifications/observations/judgements from the man whose MOQ we are >>> discussing here. >>> >> >> >> Marsha: >> Your 'judgements' are based on your 'interpretations' of annotations >> 129,130,131,132,133 and 135. >> It is also your 'opinion' that they are "pretty straightforward >> comment/clarifications/observations/judgements." >> Your 'opinion' also presumes RMP'S communications skills are absolute and >> perfect. I do not believe >> he has claimed such an infallible skill. >> >> DanG was lucky enough to be able to ask RMP for clarification based on his >> confusion. The rest >> of us, with different questions, have not been so fortunate. So while you >> may be happy with your >> interpretation of the LC annotations, they may not address questions >> considered by others. So >> your posts sound to me mostly condescending gibberish based on illusion. > > Hi Marsha > > I've always believed that we make our own luck. LILA'S CHILD was a lot > of work, especially for someone with my background. I have no formal > education to speak of. And the idea for LC wasn't mine to begin > with... Bodvar Skutvik talked me into it. But once i started, I saw > the value there and put as much time into the project as was > practical. Actually, I neglected other areas of my life in order to > pursue it so in a sense what I did wasn't practical at all.
Marsha: Your great sacrifice and accomplishment has been acknowledge many times in this forum. I have read LC and consulted it many times. Nice job! > > I think Robert Pirsig's annotations are good touching stones to keep > in mind when it comes to the MOQ. And yes, another person would have > asked different (and most probably) better questions. I asked several > people to look over the annotations. But no one seemed to have any > ideas at the time. Magnus did send me an email but honestly his > comments didn't make sense in the context of the MOQ. They still > don't. > > You may not like Andre's style but so far as I can see, his comments > are spot on. I appreciate it when people like Andre, Paul Turner, > David Buchanan, Horse, and other thinkers find value in LILA'S CHILD. > Thank you all. But as far as me being lucky? No. There is no luck > involved. Just plain hard work and persistence. Marsha: You may think Andre's comments are "spot on". That's your opinion. I just don't think that the understanding of the MoQ can end with the LC, not Andre's interpretation, and not even your interpretations of the annotations as the LC's author. For all the questions you asked there are many you didn't. Maybe you can concede that much. And since it's publications maybe many new questions have arisen. I hate to see the MoQ limited by the few questions that made it into your book. I'd like to probe the MoQ deeply, and I will not accept that all answers have already be established. Thanks again for hard work and persistence. Marsha ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
