From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Aug 27 2005 - 04:45:38 BST
Arlo,
a) Platt's dissent is on politics not the MOQ
b) The tolerance to dissent is different for everybody .................most of my comments about intolernace of dissent are to just a select few of the group
c) I doubt ham was invited to do a paper and this was about the conference not participation on MD....... I do believe Horse's tolerance of dissent is pretty reasonable (although I and I know others never really understood Glenn's dismissal....I never knew Struan but the posts I read he seemed rude so didn't really care all that much about...although if rudeness was the reason oh why oh is ______ still here....won't bother to fill that in.....the thing that what I know of Glenn his posts were never offensive, his dismissal confused some people and was never explained
d) I know msh considers himself a dissenter but I think Sam points on that needs to be addressed
e) Although I didn't like how the paper was presented I think that it does show something regardless.....I think the paper thing was a jerkish thing to do because it was as you said to make people look like fools and makes Glenn look bad more than anyone fooled........but if people can't even admit they were fooled then they look bad IMHO (funny that the people that came out and admitted were fooled were not one of the select few that I was concerned about)
As the song says...
"Everybody plays the fool sometime;
There's no exception to the rule.
Listen, baby, it may be factual, may be cruel,
I ain't lying, everybody plays the fool."
f)When Glenn offered sincere criticism he was kicked off....so he did a dickish thing out of spite
but let's not ignore where we are being unreasonable k?
Arlo Bensinger <ajb102@psu.edu> wrote:
At 11:34 AM 8/26/2005, you wrote:
>I don't know what Glenn's political position is (do you?) so how about
>leaving politics aside for one moment. Sorry I know my "disguise" comment
>brought it on but I wasn't talking about politics.
Hi Erin,
I don't think it's about politics at all. My comments were to Platt who
made the absurd claim that "censorship" was a function of the "leftist
mind" at work.
My feeling on the Great Hoax is that if it was genuine dissent and
disagreement, then it should in no way be censored. I don't think this is
the case, however. Ham, as I've said, out-and-out denies the MOQ, and is
openly critical of Pirsig, even using a sarcastic "the Great Author" when
referring to him. And no one has moved to get Ham of the list (nor should
they). Ian posted a message, in sardonic jest, about Platt being removed,
and everyone univocally (although missing the joke) demaned he remain.
So, I don't think the MD is being censored. If anything, the Great Hoax
proved a *lack* of discrimination, not an abundance of it. Removing the
paper from a scholarly site, devoted to fair appraisal and criticism, is
not censorship, it is simply saying we don't have to give a microphone to
deliberately deceiptful and fraudulent papers. The full paper continues to
be linked of the MOQ page on Wikipedia, for anyone who may be interested
reading it. But, as I've said, if you or anyone else can show me that this
paper is a genuine critical assessment of the MOQ, then by all means I'd
change my position and demand its reinstatement.
Arlo
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
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 : Sat Aug 27 2005 - 05:01:34 BST