Andre to Mark, July 16th 2012:
> I refer you to my earlier suggestion to get a copy of Anthony's
> PhD...Anthony has made you a very good offer and what does he get? Can
> you remember what you said? You said something like: ' Well Anthony
> hasn't given (!) me a copy yet so maybe he doesn't want me to have
> one...SO DON'T BLAME ME' for not having a copy !!!!!!!!!!!!! Now what
> type of reasoning is that???
Mark:
Andre, are you working on commission here?
Is this an "offer I can't
refuse"? Are you going to send your
strong men to force me to buy it…
Ant
McWatt comments:
Now Mark, those “out-of-the-box” ideas are interesting; they could be more
effective than
the usual marketing ploys that these Californian marketing companies try to
sell me nearly every day. In fact, have
you thought of a career change? I
think these (rather statically minded) people could do with your help. (BTW, I
did offer Mark – off-line - a free
copy of the PhD but, so far, this has been ignored).
Mark
Smith continued:
…or
just tax me if I don't? Besides, if
Ant's thesis is anything like
what he has been spouting lately, it is probably full of hate and politics.
Ant
McWatt comments:
Ah,
that might be so but the PhD includes the highest quality hate you can find on
the Internet! 99% purity! Unfortunately, nine out of ten
philosophologists (of those who gave an opinion) are all Socialists so, sadly,
there
was little point putting any politics in it.
No fun.
Mark
Smith continued:
If
I wanted to buy a copy I could, but what would be the
use in that. At least by attending to
Ant's current posts, I can see
what he believes right now. I am getting
a pretty good idea.
Ant
McWatt comments:
I’m
glad my posts are proving to be of help.
Mark Smith continued to Andre:
Your paragraphs are so bereft of quality that it does not seem you
know anything about MoQ. Or am I
wrong? How about a little
thoughtful pondering before you hit the bottle?
Ant
McWatt comments:
To
those thinking of hitting the bottle. Read
the Quality of Hate chapter in the PhD first.
It will help generate that Latin passion to give your bottle the highest
quality slap. Just like the “Fairy
Feller's Master Stroke”!
Andre continued:
> I have worked in psychiatry for a few years Mark. That is why I
> suggested to you to talk to someone...professionally. And the reason I
> say this is because of the following:
Well Andre, I am talking to you right now.
What side of this
"psychiatry" have you been working on? Do you smoke cigars?
Ant
McWatt comments:
Well
if Andre does smoke cigars, I hope they are at least good quality ones (such as
Cuban Romeo & Juliets)!
>
> Mark to Horse:
> It would appear that the quality that you create out of my posts is
> lacking. This is not my fault, for
what you are presented with is
> words on a screen. They are
neutral. It is you and others that bring
> those words value. All I do is
write them. So, you cannot rightly
> blame me, can you?
>
> Andre to Mark:
> Do you, Mark...at all...see the resemblance in your reasoning like to
> above? Everyone else is to blame. You are the one misunderstood. You
> are the one writing Quality. It's just that no-one else sees it. You
> are not to blame!! This, my friend is classical PD stuff. Yes, look it
> up if you want. You really need help. And you certainly won't find it
> here because you are the only one who ' completely understands the
> MoQ' as you stated a few posts
back. Boy it must be frustrating for you.
Mark:
I
am not blaming anyone.
Ant
McWatt comments:
Mark,
this is the kind of disingenuous rhetoric of yours which I have been
complaining about as all words are value laden.
The closest we get to neutral words here is the signing off “Moq_Discuss
mailing list” information at the end of each post. To dismiss a critique of
one’s own writing by
simply saying, for instance, “Not me guv, I only wrote the words that stated
‘you’re the biggest fucker in the world’ and it’s not my fault that you’ve
taken this personally” beggars belief.
No wonder Andre thinks you have a personality disorder!
Mark
Smith continued:
My
point was that this gut reflex some people have to my posts is purely
emotional.
Ant
McWatt comments:
Interesting
point here though, Mark. I think you’re actually talking about the Dynamic
response that many contributors have here when they first read your posts.
They can’t immediately put their finger on
why they get this negative response about them but – for anyone who can be
really bothered – you can carefully go through each paragraph of one of your
typical posts and then intellectually work out why they are so “off-the-mark”
(so
to speak).
Again,
personally, I think your posts are “getting there” (a philosophologist who had
never
read Pirsig’s books would probably wonder what the fuss is all about here) but
compared to an average Dave Buchanan or Arlo Bensinger post they don’t help my
understanding of the MOQ. And,
unfortunately, for a beginner, your posts are going to be misleading. And
that’s my real problem with them.
Unfortunately,
because you tend to post so much, it would be quite a commitment to keep
correcting
them (especially on a line on line basis which they really need). If I was
Horse, I’d consider limiting you to two
posts (of five pages max) a week, say for six months, so this Discussion group
can
(hopefully) deal with them properly.
Otherwise, and presuming you sincerely want to make a positive contribution
regards the MOQ, maybe you should consider just writing essays for a while and
post
sections of them here occasionally (or, directly to people who’d help you,
off-line) for comment
and revision. The latter would also save Horse having to monitor you all the
time. Anyway, for what it’s
worth, that’s my take on this matter.
Best
wishes,
Ant.
.
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
