From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 06:29:39 BST
Hi Erin,
I received your second post. As it contains only assertions without
argument or linked-quotes, I cannot proceed. Quoting someone without
a link makes it impossible to read the quote in context without
spending hours scouring the archives.
Also, your second post contains neither unlinked quotes or any other
evidence or argument to support your assertion that "people will
complain about the dogmatic, appeal to authority attitudes of
religous (sic) people while promoting that very attitude here."
I'm very interested in your reasons for making this statement.
msh 7-16-05:
I suggest that, if you read carefully rather than skim say the last
15 or so posts in the Moral Society thread, you'll see that I have
been trying to push the discussion beyond bickering, and have met
with nothing but evasion. I've answered all questions asked of me
with no substantive response to questions I've asked in return. The
evidence is there, if you choose to review it.
Erin: Why should I focus my attention on an unproductive
conversation?
msh responds 7-16-05:
How can you judge it unproductive without focusing attention on it?
msh 7-15-05:
For me, the ideas expressed by ignorant reactionaries like Vogel,
and right-wingers in general, are so easy to expose as foolish, it's
a pleasure to keep them (the right-wingers) around. Truth comes out,
and Quality is served.
erin 7-16-05:
see I don't get this...it is talked about how it is more helpful to
stick to issues than to this right-leftpartykind of crap....yet you
continue to do it.
msh 7-16-05:
In the paragraph above, I use the expression "right-wingers" as
shorthand for an easily identifiable political agenda. If you read
my detailed posts in political discussions, you'll see that I deal
exclusively with ideas and don't talk right-left at all. In fact,
I''ve often said that the left-right, lib-con false dichotomy is a
red-herring to distract us from meaningful discussion. But, to see
this, you need to read, not skim, my posts.
ERIN: I don't really understand your distinction.
msh 7-16-05:
I don't understand what it is you don't understand. Can you clarify?
erin 7-16-05:
AlsoI know you want to lump me into the conservative 3 group and
thus not get to know me as an individual but insteadjust generically
applystupid little political stereotypes .....but last presidential
election i voted democratic and the one before that I voted for
Nader. You don't know anything about me so please stop trying to
make assumptions about me because your horrible at it.
msh 7-16-05:
a) I've drawn no conclusions about your political beliefs. As far as
I've seen, your posts contain no argument or evidence for a position
of any kind. b)Mostly, you ask questions, get careful thoughtful
responses from people who clearly understand your question, then
write back saying "That's not what I mean," then ask the same
question, again.
ERIN:a) LOL ok Mark I would bet a lot of money that is a bunch of
B.S. let's just put it that way.....just by reading your posts to me
I could tell you assumed I was a conservative....the last post where
you tried to lump your three conservatives together only further
confirmed.
msh 7-16-05:
The three conservatives I referred to are Platt, Ham, and Jon. This
may surprise you, but I go several hours in a row without thinking
about you at all.
erin 7-16-05:
b) your second part doesn't really go with the first...I don't post
on political topics here so I don't know what you are talking about
msh 7-16-05:
I wasn't referring to political posts. I had in mind our first
series of exchanges, on Pirsig's ideas of Quality, in which I spent
several hours thinking about and answering your questions. Your last
post to me, in that exchange, was this dismissive and condescending:
"I give up buddy, nuff said. I'll stick with just experiencing
Quality and I'm going to leave it up to you and the gurus to verify
it, prove it, demonstrate it, whatever it. Good luck in your pursuit
of emprical evidence of Quality."
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/11816.html
msh 7-16-05:
I'd be interested to know what you find respectful in the way he has
handled my arrogance in the last 10 or so posts.
ERIN: I just think he is more tolerant of beliefs he doesn't agree
with than you are ones that you don't agree with.... I am sorry you
don't see your own arrogance but how am I supposed to point out a
condescending tone of a post? I never got the impression that he was
trying to control your or anybody's political beliefs but I got that
impression with you at times.
msh 7-16-05:
When I disagree with someone I offer argument and evidence in support
of my opinion. If you are saying I'm not tolerant of opinions
unsupported by argument and evidence when expressed in a philosophy
forum, then you are right. Postings of this sort belong in a
different forum if the integrity of MD is to be maintained. I'm
sorry you don't agree.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why,
why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell
himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 17 2005 - 07:34:36 BST