> [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.
Yes, correct, but then I went on a touche tangent
that deals with the MoQ.org in general.
> [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.
Oh, SAVE US, SAVE US!!! Save us from the crap
with more crap by the on-going I don't like Platt, I
don't like what he says, he's evil, get rid of him
Horse and shining armor. Then go right on and discuss
with Platt, meanwhile you find the 'higher' ground to
be discussion built upon cooperation. It's
contradiction.
> > [Ian]
> > 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).
I'm not asking a rhetorical question. It's quite
straight forward.
[Ian]
> He breaks two rules (1) the ad hominem rule, by
constantly
> referring to people's
> qualities (like their politics) rather than what
they say,
Can you honestly say you haven't done this?
Especially with Platt.
[Ian]
> and (2) intellectual dishonesty in failing to
address points
> even in the threads in which he simulates
engagement.
If that's a rule, then yes, I agree he does break
this rule. We also allow him to break this rule by
asking him a million times to answer the question
knowing full well that he doesn't. He's bait gets
food on his table every time. Hook, line - gotcha!
(I can hear him now.)
[Ian]
> I may occasionally talk "to" Platt, but mainly I
talk at his crap (or
> not at all).
"Talk at his crap" As if that'll get you
anywhere intellectually.
[SA previously]
> > 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.
A huge pile of intellectual values... sounds
helpful and interesting. You know, as much as I
disagree with Ham, early on when I joined this forum,
I had a discussion with Ham that lasted over a month.
It was all intellectually based. That was the longest
interesting intellectually based discussion I've had
here. I've had intellectually based discussions with
others every now and then, but with Ham the discussion
didn't go off course and the thoughts were
stimulating. As much as I disagree with him, he wins,
maybe even hands down, in his effort in keeping the
intellectual patterns afloat. It's the MoQ.org, its'
the participants (including me). Haven't you figured
it out? The MoQ.org, maybe the MoQ itself, that
strays the intellect into a killing zone where dq is
supposed to shine and static patterns are erased,
right?
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
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/
