Inserted SA ... On 7/18/07, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Ian] > > Touche, SA :-) ... that's the risk I took. A > catch-22. I'd much rather > > ignore it too, that is of course why I invoked Gav's > previous reaction. > > Who said what I wrote was about you only? Or > maybe your only responding to what was directed > towards you?
[Ian] Huh, because you started your response with "Ian", you replied to my mail, and inlcuded the entire quote from my mail verbatim .... what would you think ? No only about it BTW. > > [Ian] > > Sorry, I didn't mean to come across all put upon - I > know others > > choose to ignore, and regular participants also > recognise Platt's > > game, without advice from the likes of me or Arlo... > > > Again, I was talking to Platt, too. I responded, > therefore, I'm involved, as well. Why you? > > > [Ian] > > ...though Michael did question Arlo's position ... > which is what > > prompted me to intervene. My point is that so much > of this faux > > argument stands in the record of this board for > other unsuspecting > > new-comers to read, when they stumble upon the idea > of > > researching MoQ. > > > So? [Ian] Quite simple really - if they stumble upon a forum full of crap they may not stop to engage, and we lose their possible contributions to our mutual enlightenment. > > > [Ian] > > I wouldn't feel the (occasional) need to point this > out, if Horse took > > actions open to him. > > Censorship? You talk to Platt, so does Arlo. > What specifically does Platt do that breaks any of the > rules of the MoQ.orgdiscuss in which case your calling > upon Horse as necessary? [Ian] I know that was a rhetorical question - but it's quite straightforward (and I'm not suggesting a life sentence). He breaks two rules (1) the ad hominem rule, by constantly referring to people's qualities (like their politics) rather than what they say, and (2) intellectual dishonesty in failing to address points even in the threads in which he simulates engagement. I may occasionally talk "to" Platt, but mainly I talk at his crap (or not at all). > > > [Ian] > > Anyway - you make an important additional point SA > ... what this > > board needs is a balance of constructive synthetic > discussion - > > building on agreement, and less critical dialectic. > Take it away > > > EXACTLY! But this is the MOQ.orgdiscuss forum. > Disagreement is what builds discussion here. > Especially politics and gay marriage. These are the > intellectual values of this forum. Again, sarcasm!!! [Ian] And so it might be worth moving the "political disagreements" out of the way, so that "innocent bystanders" are not confused by a huge pile of intellectual values. > > By the way, I've just started to read Catch-22. > I'm in the third or fourth chapter. I bought it for > $3.99 at Borders Bookstore in their outside the > building book sale. It keeps my attention very > easily. [Ian] Good for you. > > > woods, > SA > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play > Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > http://sims.yahoo.com/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
