Glenn,
please don't take my post as against you. After reading yours, I decided to
write, not what to write. Of course my mind was already made up.
I don't know why you have inserted in your post those comparisons between
Diana and Horse.
> Your response makes it sound like I said that the difference
> between Diana and Horse was that she never kicked anyone
> out, and you find it somehow important to set the record
> straight on this. I never said this and it wasn't my point
> Under Diana's helm, dissenting opinions were OK and people
> of my "ilk", as MOQers like to say, could feel reasonably
> comfortable here".
We both know that under Diana another similar episode happened. So? Maybe
I've not properly understood the reason for your words, let me know. Let me
point out that in the past just Struan guessed that Horse had won a personal
battle with Diana. For what I know, it's just his invention.
And I really don't see how you are not anymore comfortable now. This forum
is unmoderated. You can post what you want. I think Platt is happy with
Horse just because Platt and Horse never agree on anything, but Platt is
free to write that Horse's ideas (like libertarian socialism) are a
disaster. I also don't agree usually with Platt, and sometimes he makes me
angry, but I admire his politeness.
> As for Mr. X, you give the impression that Diana unjustly gave him the ax,
> when in fact you say yourself that "it was just one of the many charges"
> and "Diana had other reasons to unsubscribe him". Unless you are privy to
> those reasons, you have no way of fully evaluating whether Mr. X's
> expulsion was justified.
Diana informed us of her reasons, and I was not in agreement. I suggested a
temporary unsubscription. I respected her decision, though.
> After saying that Mr. X was expelled from the fail to see is that
> MF, you then imply that it is OK for Mr. X to be back on the MD because
> he was never expelled from the MD. This reasoning is based on a
> technicality, not ethics. That Mr. X can currently post as an actual
member
> and doesn't have to piggy-back on someone else's account to get his ideas
> across, and that Mr. X also happens to be an avid supporter of the MOQ,
> are two highly correlated facts, in my opinion.
I'm really glad he is back. No technicism. Really. And no, I don't mind that
he is an avid supporter of the MOQ. We have already plenty of them here :-)
I think that what you fail to see is that I think, exactly like then, that
Struan should be allowed to subscribe. But again, like then I respect
Horse's rights and I'm not going to cry for Struan.
> Your ancillary reasons for supporting Horse - that he pays the fees and
> does the administration, are all very agreeable.
Ancillary. Interesting adjective. Why do you think I should be ancillary?
Are you meaning I'm not sincere and that I'm having some double thought?
That Horse "pays" me in some way? Or that I'm incapable of an individual
determination? Take a look on my posts to Diana just before her departure. I
was not very ancillary (anyway, I'd be glad to see her back here). So, why
now?
No, really I just think you have been too unfair.
> Horse has never been truly interested in any critical
> analysis of Pirsig's writings, has a weak tolerance for
> dissenting views, and basically wants moq.org to be
> a sanctuary for people oppressed by the larger SOM
> dominated world, or more properly the world he
> perceives as such. "
But I don't want to sound too ancillary, so I stop here.
Marco
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 - 16:02:12 BST