Horse, An opinion is not "correct" by it's very nature. I would not make that mistake, otherwise I would be caught up in conceptual truths an remain static.
Agreement is a completely different beast, in my humble opinion. Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh for god's sake stop playing to an audience Mark - there's no sympathy for > your moaning and whinging about how unfair I am to you - which I'm not! > Not a single person has disagreed with me and at least 1 person has agreed > (Andre - twice) so it's obvious that they all agree with me - well that's how > I prefer to see it. But then no-one has disagreed with you either so you'd > take that as agreement. So, by your logic, everyone both agrees and disagrees > with everything we say!!!! Are you really that dim as to believe that this is > the case? > If you wish to believe that everyone agrees with you (because they remain > silent) then that's up to you, however, you do not have the right to state > this as fact or assert that your opinion is correct, because you have no > valid grounds to do so other than wishful thinking. > > The rest of your post is emotionally loaded nonsense. > I don't 'put down' your opinion - I disagree with you. > My 'rhetoric' is 'negative' because I disagree with you. > I have 'tolerated' your umpteen posts a day, when the forum rules state a > maximum of 4, because I am tolerant. > The only one of us who has ego problems is you. > My 'realism' is just that - being realistic and not a self-deluding fool. > When someone says 'hear hear' you are in agreement with that person not the > entire forum. > You spend more time insulting, belittling and denigrating others than I do. > > And the biggest joke of all is this line: > "How can I provide examples of agreement if I do not get a response." > Obviously you can't, so if you can't provide evidence of agreement then don't > be so infantile as to CLAIM agreement. > > I disagree with you on so many things and at so many levels I wouldn't know > (or care) where to start. For this reason I choose not to engage in pointless > debate with you and YOUR ego. And yet I still allow you to continue - how > tolerant is that?!? > > So stop whining Mark, stop making false claims, stop being dishonest, stop > twisting others argument and stop making appeals to emotion in order to > rubbish those who disagree with you. Because if you don't do so of your own > accord I will, as list administrator, do so for you. > Is this clear enough for you? > > Horse > > > On 12/03/2012 23:05, 118 wrote: >> Horse, that is not the case, that i deny the opinions of others. My point >> of view is changing as a result of this forum as I hope everyone's is. Can >> you honestly say that you have the same point of view you had last year? >> This forum is about growth and not sticking with old opinions, that is why >> we discuss things. >> >> I see no resin why you insist in putting down my opinion if it does not >> agree with yours; you seem to be the intolerant one. Show me one post where >> I have said "you have a problem, Horse". All this negative rhetoric comes >> from you. It is not constructive. Very rarely do I see an opinion from you >> that is not just taking sides or admonishing someone because they posted >> something you don't like. I see no signs of you being tolerant, unless you >> are normally a very intolerant person. Think about it! >> >> So here I say, Horse, you've got a big problem. What are you going to do, >> banish me to protect your ego? >> >> If I see agreement, I will call it that. What is wrong with agreeing >> anyway. Are we not allowed to agree? Your "realism" is somewhat macabre. >> >> When a member says "hear, hear..." and I agree with him are we not in >> agreement? Why must you be so combative? >> >> Please show me where I am insulting any more than you are. You treat Marsha >> like shit sometimes. You may be projecting your own hostility on to me. >> Please provide examples. >> >> How can I provide examples of agreement if I do not get a response. What is >> wrong with my thinking that there is agreement. Is that not allowed in this >> forum? >> >> Please indulge me with an explanation. >> >> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >> Mark >> >> On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Mark >>> >>> This why there is such a problem communicating with you - you are incapable >>> of agreeing with anyone else's point of view unless it happens to be your >>> own. This is also part of your problem. My stating as such is not negative >>> it is realistic. >>> >>> Preferring or pretending to see agreement where none exists is not only >>> negative it is intellectually dishonest. That is not in the spirit of the >>> MoQ. >>> >>> A lack of response to a question or statement is not a confirmation of its >>> validity - it is a lack of response to a question or statement. >>> >>> On 11/03/2012 16:47, 118 wrote: >>>> Silence in this forum is bereft of quality. >>> and yet now you change your tack and say that it does when you said >>> previously that it didn't! Please make up your mind. >>> >>> If someone says nothing to you when you state your point of view you are >>> not entitled to take that as agreement in any sort of rational or >>> intelligent conversation. >>> >>> If you want to present your point of view on this forum then do so, I have >>> not tried to stop you, however if you want to state that other members of >>> this forum agree with your point of view then please present some sort of >>> evidence. If you have no evidence to show this then you cannot claim that >>> you do because you 'prefer' to do so. >>> >>> I am also trying to remain civil in the face of your increasingly >>> irrational and bizarre statements and your (poorly) veiled insults. >>> >>> Horse >>> >>> >>> On 12/03/2012 16:21, 118 wrote: >>>> Hi Horse, >>>> >>>> No, I cannot see that I "have a problem". What do I have a problem >>>> with? Please explain rather than just throw out such a derogatory >>>> statement. For such a statement is indeed a negative outlook, and >>>> certainly is not in the spirit of MoQ. >>>> >>>> If I prefer to see a lack of response as agreement, who are you to >>>> tell me otherwise? What do you mean by “the only way. What book of >>>> rules are you referring to? Perhaps you see a lack of response as a >>>> disagreement. This could be your choice, but it stems from a negative >>>> outlook in MoQ. Remember, Quality is a tendency of the Good, not Bad. >>>> Or am I wrong there? Because of this, the negative and the positive >>>> are important, and cannot be summarily dismissed as you say. >>>> >>>> Obviously I have presented some questions here. Shall I take a lack >>>> of response as a disagreement to how the questions were formulated? >>>> Sometimes I have no idea where you are coming from. Therefore I >>>> request clarification so that I may better understand what you are >>>> writing to me. >>>> >>>> Take your time and don't just reflexively tell me that I have a >>>> problem because I have a problem. I could easily state that you >>>> have “a problem”, but I see no value in that. I am trying to remain >>>> civil to another human being. >>>> >>>> By the way, silence has great value. It is what occurs between notes >>>> on a piano. What good would decorative music be without silence? So >>>> your “less quality than silence” makes no sense to me whatsoever. >>>> Maybe you could explain this phrase to me as well. If not, I can >>>> always assume that your silence is in disagreement with my statement >>>> about silence... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On 3/12/12, Horse<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Mark >>>>> >>>>> Choosing to infer something from nothing is different to inferring >>>>> something from something - if you can't see that you have a problem. >>>>> Having a positive or negative outlook is irrelevant. >>>>> The only way you can know that someone agrees with you is if they say >>>>> they agree with you. >>>>> Taking a lack of agreement as agreement has less quality than silence. >>>>> >>>>> Horse >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> "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 >> 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 > > -- > > "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 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
