Marsha said to dmb:
...your motorcycle, like many of your arguments (see clear example below), is
missing some major parts.
Marsha'a example:
In the thread titled "Definitions", dmb said to Krimel:
...that's just a weird application of your scientific nihilism and it has
nothing to do with Pirsig's refusal to define the MOQ's central term. Using
"dog" interchangeably with "Quality" or the "Tao" would be provocative and edgy
if it made any sense at all. Let me see if I follow your reasoning here,
Krimel. As I read it, you are saying, A) Dogs and everything else, including
definitions, cannot be defined any more than the indefinable, mystical reality
can. B) Therefore, you are not required to use words correctly or otherwise
make sense when discussing philosophy.
dmb now replies to Marsha:
I don't know what "major parts" are missing from this "argument" but you should
realize that it's not my argument. I was summarizing the argument made by
Krimel and you, as it happens. I was mocking the bullshit argument that you and
Krimel use to evade the, apparently overwhelming, responsibility of making
sense.
How delicious that you would mistake a parody of yourself for my bad argument.
You have no business here, you confused troll. Go away.
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
