Hi Dave
Your reply is pretty much what it comes down to.
If I don't let every idiot on the planet use the Pirsig discussion forum
(MD) for any purpose whatsoever and then have the audacity to object
then I'm an evil tyrant.
Fine - I can live with that.
I made my position very clear earlier in the year when there was a big
blow up with Bo and since then the two persons who have been most
evasive and counter-productive to discussion of (here we go again):
****** """" ROBERT PIRSIGS MOQ """" ******** ,
which is what this list is here for, have been Marsha and Platt.
Despite continuous requests for the contrary you two have continued to
argue for the SOL, many times going over the 2 posts per day limit -
except when it seems amusing to do otherwise.
Having kept my eye on particular discussions over the last several
months there are two problems which seem to continually recur.
Discussion about the intellectual level or intellect is hijacked by
either Marsha or Platt and the SOL (or as it's now known Reification).
Any political discussion is hijacked by Platt who immediately starts
screaming commie, leftist etc. as soon as something is said with which
he disagrees.
These two items, along with one or two others which I have also noticed,
will be addressed in the New Year and if I need to be the evil tyrant in
order to sort them out then that is exactly what will happen.
This list is for the discussion of Pirsig's MoQ and 2011 will see a
start made to get back on that track.
More later.
Horse
On 31/12/2010 20:30, david buchanan wrote:
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.
--
"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
