Hi Steve, Have some mercy on dmb, you can rise above that even if he cannot. Takes two to tango unless one is schizophrenic. Oh, and I do agree with your points. I no longer read or write to dmb. It is a lost cause. Maybe once he gets back to the real world (if he was ever there), he will change for the better. Nothing like a little ice-cold water to wake one up. Mark
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
