Horse said to 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.
Platt replied to 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?
dmb says:
If I understand Platt's childish "logic" he's saying that if Marsha isn't
allowed to be insincere, dishonest, and evasive then Horse is a tyrant. If I
understand him, cheating is okay so long as there is no rule against it or no
ruler to enforce it.
Leaving aside the fact that this "reasoning" is deeply insulting to Horse, this
response raises a question; why would any self-respecting amateur philosopher
have a problem with the "rules" against such evasions. Why would any thinker
object to the "rules" against any form of intellectual dishonestly? Aren't
moral people sickened by such behavior? Isn't it the intellectual equivalent of
an obscenity? Wouldn't a decent person respond to such a charge with a
substantial answer instead of more evasions? Horse says there has been a whole
year of these evasions and I can testify to a long history of evasions from
Marsha too. It's just not right and I think it's really sad that anybody needs
to explain how or why it's so bad. How can a grown up person not know this
already?
Sigh.
I think anyone, including Horse, has the right to complain about things like
that. I think every self-respecting MOQer should consider it their duty to cry
foul in a situation such as this.
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
