Hi Ian
Personally, I think DMB, Dan, Arlo, Ant etc. have shown great restraint
when communicating with some of the 'contributors' to this list.
When you consider some of the utter shite that some on this list have
tried to pass off as philosophy in general, and MOQ related philosophy
in particular, I can quite see where they are coming from.
It's not just that there is some degree of initial difficulty moving
from a GOF/SOM view of reality to an MoQ view (we have all, as both DMB
and Dan have stated, been there and done that) but the absolute refusal
to listen to anyone or any argument that disagrees with their own
misinterpretation of Pirsig's work - including in some cases where their
view directly contradicts Pirsig's specific dismissal of a particular
position!!! This has to be the ultimate instance of disrespect - i.e.
saying that the author is too stupid to understand his own work!!
And how, pray tell, do I enforce the rules that you are proposing when
even the most simple rule of 4 posts per day is sometimes ignored (or to
be more charitable maybe, accidentally transgressed!!!)?
Sanctions, shame, removal?
I understand what you're saying but, let's be honest here, if some
contributors have such little respect for what Pirsig has said with
great clarity then there will be fuck all respect for others that wish
to ensure that this clarity is maintained and/or promoted.
Perhaps that's where I should start with regard to disrespect - but then
again I'd like to have a list that contains sufficient members to
continue conversations!
Cheers
Horse.
On 25/04/2013 10:28, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Given my exchanges with Dan and dmb, and David Harding's recent post on
argumentation towards agreement .... I though I'd post a set of Rules of
Engagement .... I've proposed elsewhere:
*Rule #1 RESPECT – Understand & Question before Disagree & Criticize.*
*Critical debate is essential to our agenda and anyone voicing direct
disagreement with or criticism of the arguments of another must be seen to
have understood, or sincerely attempted to understand, the others’ argument
and to have related their counter argument to it.*
* *
*Rule #2 RESPECT – No “Ad Hominem” attacks on the Individual.*
*Absolute no-no. Anyone having trouble with an individual should resolve
with that individual, and involve moderator(s) in absolute confidence if
mediation or moderation is considered necessary.*
* *
*Rule #3 RESPECT – Duty of Care when using Rhetoric or Irony.*
*OK, but life (mine and yours) would be boring and sterile if we politely
agreed with each other. So lively, critical, robust, intelligent debate is
positively encouraged. What will not be tolerated is any perceived intent
to circumvent Rules #1 & #2 under cover of rhetoric or irony.*
* *
*Beyond the rules above, here are a few guidelines.*
*(Snipped here.)*
*
*
*Moderation / Applying the Rules*
*(Snipped here.)*
* *
* Enjoy.*
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
