Platt
If someone is serious about a position that they hold and wishes to
participate in a discussion forum where they put forward that position
and wish for it to be taken seriously then it is reasonable to assume
that they will answer questions about that position.
If they are talking crap and just want to witter and waffle about this
and that and play stupid games then I no longer consider them to be
serious about their position. and as such see them as an unnecessary and
pointless annoyance on this list.
This is exactly where Marsha is at the moment.
So while there is nothing in the rules that states explicitly that a
participant is obliged to answer another's questions there is also
nothing to prevent me from removing a person from the list who I feel is
abusing the principles of participation on this list.
So, for the umpteenth time, this list is for the discussion of Robert
Pirsigs MoQ - it is not some playground for people with nothing better
to do than play stupid games.
Horse
On 31/12/2010 19:48, Platt Holden wrote:
Horse,
I don't see anything in the rules about a participant's obligation to answer
another's questions. Is this a new mandate you intend enforce?
Platt
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
> Platt
>
> I asked for answers to questions that are fundamental to Marsha's ideas
> about reification.
> As usual, and as I thought would happen, no answers were forthcoming. Only
> evasion.
> This has been going on all year (and longer) with a number of members of
> MD.
> That's what I'm saying.
>
> The rest of your post is a red herring - again, as per usual.
>
> Horse
>
>
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
