Hi Horse, Horse: > Steve and Dave go hammer and tongs at, for the most part I think, > philosophical issues. They have different interpretations of Pirsig (and > others) work and neither of them appear to be particularly aggrieved at the > treatment they both mete out to each other.
Steve: The thing is, I think dmb and I pretty much agree on Pirsig interpretation, and I AM pissed about how dmb routinely treats people on this forum. That's why I called him a dick. I'm fed up with it. There's just no way he could get away taking the dickish pose he takes in this forum when talking to people in person. That lousy social pattern of his would get straightened out by biological patterns right quick. Now, he's good at posing as a non-dick when he needs to. He's defending his dickish behavior as he most reasonable person in the world. Some people just can't handle criticism (yeah, right. THAT's the issue). But I have little doubt that he'll be back to his old ways very soon, and you'll see what I mean if you don't already know. (This is a guy who can't get along with Matt K of all people!) Horse: >Although having said that it > would be nice every now and again guys if you two took a breather and looked > at where you agree - because it seems to me that there are a number of areas > where this occurs. I could be wrong but I think that's true. Steve: I agree, but here again is an example of what is so toxic about dmb. His m.o. is pretty much this: 1. Find something to quibble about in someone else's post. 2. Make this point of disagreement out to be a HUGE life or death deal. (Let's none of us go to the polls before finding out where the candidates stand on free will!) 3. When the OP responds saying that is not what was meant and clarifies his position, don't accept what he is saying as agreement. Instead, insist that the OP use the EXACT same words in describing the issue or else this is still a HUGE deal. 4. To punch up the point that the disagreement is HUGE, mischaracterize the OP's position and then make a bunch of claims that no one disagrees with as though the OP were stridently disagreeing (No, you aren't getting it. Immoral behavior is bad! That should be obvious). 5. Follow up by citing some lengthy passages that have nothing to do with the actual point of disagreement and finish by saying, "see what's at stake here? Now THAT is why all this is sooooo important to get right." 6. Return to step 3. and repeat until the OP gets sick of this nonsense. As I see it, that's pretty much how he brings the heat without generating any light. That and all the name-calling other general bullying. Best, Steve 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
