Hi Struan,
hope you are enjoying this winter in the Mediterranean Sea. Any good Jazz
event in Malta?
You demonstrate a great attention to the MOQ site (a great debugger indeed)
and it is IMHO strange for someone who "vomits" reading the "stupid
simplistic answers like those contained in Pirsig's work" and "weeps for
human condition" seeing "the people who fall for them".
I mean, I'm usually careful to keep myself away from what makes me vomit. At
the contrary you show a sort of (intellectual) perversion in your careful
attention for these horrible mailing lists and web site. I guess there is a
plenty of vomitous mailing lists outside there... thousands of religions and
ideologies and philosophies probably more dangerous and popular than the
MOQ. So what's the reason for you go on attacking the MOQ if you are sure
that it has no future and no importance... (isn't it) ?
(Just to understand, I don't want to rule you out).
Ciao,
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: "Struan Hellier" <struan@clara.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:21 AM
Subject: MD By their fruits ye shall know them
> Greetings,
>
> By the wonders of modern technology, even Malta can't keep me from
> replying to Horse's posting - and a beauty it was too.
>
> (Short message to Wim at the end - I will expand offline if you desire,
> but a metaphysics of Struan is irrelevant here as I am sure you will
> agree. Although, given the fact that Horse is so desperate to hear it,
> perhaps I should expand on it here . . . . no, possibly not)
>
> Apparently, and according to Horse, I am a liar, a total twat, an idiot,
> a hypocrite, and a sham who talks garbage - amongst other things. This
> is your leader folks. The epitome of the moq!!!
>
> Still no reason, rationality, argument, responses to my arguments or
> sensible refutations though. Just insults. Again.
>
> I will make two more points, the first as a genuine effort to help.
>
> 1) One very good reason the 'focus' group has stagnated is that anyone
> logging on to it is likely to think it is defunct, simply because the
> website hasn't been properly updated for so long. The current archive
> ends about six months ago (!) and, bizarrely, you have to search through
> the *old* archive to find the most recent six months of discussion!!?!
> The net result is that people who join moq.org will probably think that
> the focus group is either defunct or run by people who are not
> interested. That is amateurish incompetence and needs to be sorted out
> before any of the other ideas can be implemented. Can someone with the
> interest and/or the basic ability required to spot these things, take
> this task on? The rest of the site needs a makeover too. Lots of out of
> date material and broken links. Not impressive I am afraid. That is what
> I meant about Diana, Denis. Not that I agreed with anything she said,
> but she at least cared about the site - and that care has gone.
>
> 2) Of course, Horse will deny it, but Diana was always reticent to sign
> the moq site over to him from the old server and for very good reason.
> He wanted it for himself, signing up the moq.org domain name in eager
> anticipation well before Diana agreed to move it and badgering her to
> ensure she did. This much was obvious to me over two years ago and the
> process was as cynical and crude as Horse's hatchet job on me in that
> last posting. Just look at how Horse reacted to my gentle ribbing for
> proof. Perhaps Horse thought he could do a better job, but I refer you
> all to point one for evidence against this.
>
> A final plea to those that value philosophy. Look at the arguments I
> have presented. Look at the content, the structure, the scholarly
> references, and the obvious desire to get a non-personal point across.
> Now look at the reply of Horse with its hatred, vitriol and complete
> lack of anything other than insults. Look at the posts of Platt with his
> blind insistence that that the clearly unoriginal is original, despite
> all the freely available evidence to the contrary. Check it all out for
> yourselves and be honest. Certainly do not take my word for it.
>
> But Horse has proved me right and I thank him for it - 'by their fruits
> ye shall know them' and all that.
>
> Struan
>
> P.S. Denis - thanks for reiterating my points. Might you perhaps pick
> Horse up on his far greater level of insulting? I doubt it. Does that
> make you a hypocrite? I suspect so.
>
> P.P.S Wim - Metaphysics, for me, asks one question. 'What does it mean
> to be'? A secondary question derived from this is, 'Why is there
> anything rather than nothing.' My answer to the first question is
> unoriginal, flawed and complicated. In addition, I do not understand it
> well as yet. As such, the second question is beyond me too. I am writing
> a book on the matter - but it probably (certainly) will not have any
> real answers and it *definitely* will not have some crass taxonomy.
> Metaphysics is all about questions. There is no 'grand plan' and stupid
> (sorry but they are) simplistic answers like those contained in Pirsig's
> work make me vomit and the people who fall for them make me weep for the
> human condition.
> -------------------
> Struan Hellier
> struan@clara.co.uk
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST