David, >>> djh: >>> If so, doesn't honest intellectual discussion involve agreement and >>> disagreement? >> >> [Marsha] >> Sometimes a hypothetical yes, sometimes hypothetical no, sometimes a less >> certain maybe or maybe not, and sometimes: I clearly don't know. Sometimes >> you might offer food for thought; that would be welcomed. If you want >> absolute agreement or disagreement, you'll likely not get it from me. > > [djh] > Right - here's dmb's whole Marsha confuses SOM with Intellect rearing its > ugly head. I'm not talking about SOM absolutes.
Marsha before: Good. Drop the the reference to absolutes and everything else still stands: Sometimes a hypothetical yes, sometimes hypothetical no, sometimes a less certain maybe or maybe not, and sometimes: I clearly don't know. Sometimes you might offer food for thought; that would be welcomed. Marsha adds: Using the term 'absolute' was just a conventional defense mechanism used as a defense against the posters that think they have a right to claim themselves right and me wrong. Right OR wrong??? Could such a claim be more absolute? Or calling me anti-intellectual or a bad mystic, an accusation to discredit what I'm saying; that's just another underhanded way of announcing that they're right and I'm wrong. Or saying that I fail "to distinguish the cure from the disease", and then saying it multiple as if to establish it is a proof rather than a nonsensical statement. That statement is an accusation not an argument, an unfounded accusation so opaque as to elude meaning. Marsha 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
