Mark, No, I guess not, but I'm a very good cook and can make a delicious paella. ;-)
Marsha On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:29 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Religious Zealot? Here is the self test. If you answer yes to two > questions, you are slightly insecure; 4, you need help; 6, you are a > religious zealot; 8, you are living in a box; All of them, you are a > politician. > > 1)Have you been throwing books at people lately to show that you are > "oh so right" and everybody else is damn wrong? > > 2) Do you besmirch everybody who doesn't have your view? > > 3) Do you keep presenting the same quotes time and time again, rigorously? > > 4) Do you respond by telling others that they are idiots? > > 5) Are you unable to deal with other people's opinions? > > 6) Do you say it is true because the preacher said it was? > > 7) Are you praying or trying to find favor with your maker? > > 8) Are you concerned with others blaspheming your maker? > > 9) Do you claim to be a favored child? > > 10) Are you stuck in Dogma? > > :-) > Mark > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:18 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: >> >> HI Mark, >> >> Am I sounding like a religious zealot? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:02 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:32 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: >>> There is a relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism, and I do not >>> think my pursuing it poses any threat to the MoQ. As RMP has clearly >>> stated, the MoQ is not confined within any one philosophic tradition. >>> The last paragraph in your post seems to be unreasonable and >>> exaggerated name-calling because I will not follow your lead. Please >>> do not take it personally. It may be that there is a good >>> relationship between Contemporary Pragmatism/Radical Empiricism and >>> the MoQ, and between Buddhist philosophy and the MoQ, with something >>> to be gained from both approaches. >>>> >>> [Mark] >>> In the first book about Quality, Buddhism was in the title. You have >>> every reason to consider Buddhism in terms of MOQ, that was the intent >>> of the first book. I did not realize there was any dispute about >>> whether Buddhism was related. Who would even suggest such a thing? >>> >>> There are some who place quotes down instead of explanations. However >>> quotes must be viewed in the context of the entire book, and do not >>> stand on their own. It is quite possible that the context provides >>> the exact opposite of what is attempted to be supported. I can find a >>> sentence in ZMM to support any contention I want. This does not >>> provide any support whatsoever, it is bordering on Dogmatic. Throwing >>> bibles is not a philosophical approach, it is a religious one. If it >>> wasn't for philosophy, I am sure a lot of those posting would be >>> staunch religious Zealots. You can find any quote you want in the >>> bible also. Does this mean that the approach is right? Just because >>> Moses said something does not prove anything. I don't know why some >>> just march in step, it is somewhat disappointing. >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 >> > 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 ___ 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
