[Arlo] You (along with Marsha) continue to conflate this interaction/oscillation (whatever analogy you prefer) into just static quality.
DM: No I don't [DM] so you say, I am questioning why this makes you so uncomfortable [Arlo] It doesn't make me 'uncomfortable', this is a philosophy forum, isn't it? DM: In terms of intellect and MOQ values obviously, if I don't spell it out you always head off in the wrong direction it seems. [DM] I'd say sure make the distinction clear one moment, and then qualify it with transitional moments where the distinction collapses, where sq and dq appear together or morph from one into the other.. [Arlo] And this is just more of that confusion, David. DM: Clearly I say accept the DQ SQ distinction but can't see any problem with adding a qualification about the underlying unity or interlinking of SQ and DQ, how simple is that, any fool can follow that surely, if you disagree and have good reasons not to follow this let's hear it, lack of integrity seems to stop you, I can't believe mere stupidity is your problem, I have no trouble following everything you say, I just say it is wrong and inadequate and give my reasons, I don't just complain, sign and moan, you should man up and try my approach too. 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
