Mary to dmb: The reason for my question refers back to a series of posts last weekin which Marsha's statement that SPOVs are ever-changing received strenuous objection from yourself, Andre, and perhaps others.
Andre: Correct. Mary: In an attempt to understand why Marsha's statement should be attacked I asked the obvious question, which is, that if you don't believe SPOVs are ever-changing, then that must mean you think they are unchanging. Andre: I hope dmb and myself and others have clarified this for you Mary. They are 'stable' and not fixed or immutable. Mary: Now you say, much to my relief, that you do not believe that either, so I really have to wonder what all the fuss was about with Marsha? As I see it, there is no disagreement here and never was. Marsha was never conflating DQ with SQ and never saying SPOVs were anything but temporary. So, again I ask, what's all the fuss? Andre: The 'fuss' lies here Mary: Marsha (Dec 18, 2010 to Tim): 'DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Most of us know this...' and further in the post she repeats it: 'Right. DQ is sq, sq is DQ. This is what I and others attacked. And earlier in the year: Marsha: (July 23(?), 2010):'... a pattern is not limited to finite definition. Patterns can be amorphous and still stable'. To which dmb responded:'Amorphous means 'shapeless' or 'without form'. So you are saying, in effect, that patterns are shapeless and without form. This is simply a contradiction of the definitions of the terms. Again, that's why they're called STATIC patterns'. To my knowledge, Marsha has never retracted this conviction nor detracted anything from it. It is in this context you must see the 'fuss' being made. Marsha HAS conflated DQ and sq. So this is not 'some kind of straw-man set up with the intent to discredit Marsha'. Marsha's 'ever-changing' statement denotes DQ=sq/sq=DQ. It has been Marsha herself saying it 'loud enough and long enough' and yea I therefore 'actually believe that's what she thinks'. Your own statement that you do not think this is correct (i.e. conflating DQ and sq) should put you on your back heels as well because this particular statement contravenes and contradicts the most basic element of the MOQ. It makes an undifferentiated mess of things. Are you not concerned about 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
