dmb, You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of text. Marsha
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 4:12 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > dmb said: > How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual > evidence doesn't answer your objections, then what would? > > DM replied: > By actually giving some answers to my questions, by having a conversation > rather than cutting and pasting from your scrap book. If you have no views > of your own and cannot answer my questions or offer interpretations of the > author's you like to help explain how they answer my issues I do not > understand the point of you just posting your complaints to this list, just > a sort of graffiti it seems to me. > > dmb says: > I still don't understand. Why doesn't the evidence count as an answer? Why > doesn't it count as a conversation to answer with evidence? Why do you think > my own views are different from the well-evidenced answers I've given you? > This make no sense because I'm answering your questions in the best way > possible. Unless,... > The problem here is that you cannot read this evidence for yourself. Is that > it? Is that why you want me to "offer interpretations of the authors". That's > why you want me to "help explain how they answer" your issues. In other > words, you do not understand how the evidence counts as a responsible answer > because you don't know how to read the quotes. That's why you dismiss all the > evidence as graffiti. This explains why you have appeared to be so evasive > and willfully ignorant. > > So, what is it that kept you from asking about the meaning of the evidence? > Pride? I mean, don't you think that a sincere inquiry would lead you to focus > on the evidence, to ask questions, venture an interpretation, try to see the > connection between my claims and the evidence that I use to support those > claims? What good do you think will come of it if you ignore all the answers > and just keep asking the same question over and over again? In effect, you're > refusing to deal with the answers while demanding still more answers. It's > pretty outrageous behaviour. You keep saying that the quotes I give "in no > way answer the issues" but you never say WHY. It's just some vaguely > insulting dismissal, as if the selection and presentation of relevant > evidence is somehow not good enough but, dude, that is the gold standard not > just cutting and pasting from my scrap book. This is how scholarship works in > general and that's how debates are won. If anything, you should be grateful > and may be > even impressed. > > > It doesn't really even matter what your questions and objections are because > the evidence is so abundant that it should paint a clear picture of every > operative term you asked about. > > If you need help understanding the evidence, then ask for it. But don't > pretend that evidence is not evidence. Don't pretend you can improve the MOQ > before you even understand it. Both attitudes are completely ridiculous and > childish. You might think this is just silly abuse, but I'm totally sincere > and I think it's a real and valid criticism. Intellectually speaking, to > dance around the evidence like that is very sleazy and contemptible. > > 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 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
