John said:
From my perspective, Mark has been arguing against a dogmatic interpretation
by an "old guard" squelching all debate or interpretation. Against the very
common formulation of blindly worshipping the sq interpreters of the past.
That's his main theme, that I've seen. And one in which I heartily concur.
dmb says:
I don't believe that for one second. I don't think you can you cite any
examples of this debate squelching or blind worship. These accusations are so
vague that they could be thrown at anyone who has an opinion or point of view
about anything.
Isn't it true that debate squelchers and blind worshipers are those who
maintain their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary? And isn't that
exactly what you're doing when you make these accusations? If I'm presenting
the textual evidence and you are ignoring it or using it selectively in order
to maintain your position, then surely you are being the dogmatist. And these
accusations are just a way of discrediting the use of evidence as some kind of
closed-minded and oppressive tactic. That, sir, is completely ridiculous and
preposterous, by which I mean it is ass-backwards and it's mere ridicule.
Frankly, I think this complaint is so stupid and so childish that it doesn't
really deserve a response, but there it is anyway.
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
