From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 13:12:34 BST
Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
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.
So you expect me to go scour the archives for the quotes. I can go give you the links for
those quotes that I already gave you just ask...you asked for quotes
I gave you them. If you really want the links I will get you those too.......but just note that
requires we to spend a lot of time scouring the archives. I
MAY be willing do this but my patience with interacting is getting really low. Frankly I
don't know how much more I want to waste of my time posting to you
EVER. You don't see to have any problems spending time bickering on the list but I do
and think maybe if you really want your questions like this answered you
are going to have to email off the list.
MARK: 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.
ERIN: Personally I am just trying to attempt to understand some of the mean-spirited
attacks that came out in the faith thread where dogmatic, appeal to
authority was seemed to be given as but at the same time you can sometimes see that
here. It was part of the inconsistency that I see that I was trying to
explain to Arlo. (as for your other question about repeating my questions when
thoughtful answers have been given.... yes he gave me a thoughtful answer but
no it didn't address the inconsistency that I was asking about thus the repeat of the
question....at first I thought I was clearly asking about but then
realized we are just in disagreement about whether there is one.
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?
ERIN: when a thread starts I do focus my attention but when I see it start heading the
direction the same direction with same arguments don't feel like wasting
my time
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: First I know tht you argued it was a red herring which why I first asked the
question of why do you then do it yourself. Second I don't see why your
right wing statements don't fall into the category of talking about a false right-left
dichotomy.
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: oh my.....reading your last post I find it hard to believe that you weren't trying to
make a statement about how conservatives argue on the list. As for
surprised about whether you are thinking about me don't know what the heck you are
talking about..... just another assumption about me on your part I guess...I
told you to give that up your very bad about it!
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."
ERIN: where's the link/context ;-) or is that job only for other people
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:
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)
-- ERIN: again telling me what I think (and being wrong). There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence just about doing it in a respectful manner. If your attitude towards me was more respectful I would be happy to pour through the archives and get whatever quote/link you wanted....but frankly I just don't like interacting with you and find it a waste of my time. Despte that I am still willing to do it ...but only if you ask off-list..I am not wasting anymore list time for bickering. I personally am going to try and avoid all contact with you on the list for this reason.....with my attempt at avoiding in mind can I ask that you just not assume a post is about you unless your name is written 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 - 16:21:25 BST