From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 10:11:48 GMT
Mark,
Lest you miss my point - whilst I express the balanced view I did come
down firmly supporting your side of it.
With so many balls in the air (or plates spinning) at once, something has to go.
I'm right with you.
Ian
On 11/1/05, mark maxwell <laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> I appreciate your balanced view.
> We have to select those grains of experience on the
> basis of Quality.
> In my experience, and i'm not infallible - i may be
> wrong, but there appear to be a number of 'flamers' at
> work in the MD. I don't value them and i don't need
> them. I don't need to argue with them for the
> enjoyment of a good argument, and i don't need my time
> waisted.
>
> These people may now accuse me of cutting off DQ?
> That's a bit of a conceit ain't it? I mean, are these
> people really that Dynamic?
> I don't know, maybe they are Dynamic, but i can't hold
> it all at the same time so something has to go.
>
> The people i now ignore made it easy for me to let go
> because they are all characterised as those who have
> mucked about in very obvious ways. It's a fascinating
> aspect of these sites that many intelligent people
> spend a great deal of creative effort actively messing
> about for no positive reason.
> Intellectual chaos someone suggested recently?
> I really don't know.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Case, Mark, Scott, et al ...
>
> Case, you said
> No more can I assume that what I've written Mark has
> read.
> For him hence forward DQ's confined
> To the Static content of his own mind
>
> Nice, but of course, a closed mind is not Mark's
> intent as you both
> know.
> I sympathise with Mark, even if I wouldn't go so far
> as to announce
> closing my mind off to input.
>
> I did start a thread about "drawing lines in the sand"
> back in July /
> August. What I feel is worth knowing, when arguing, or
> choosing when
> not to bother, is what it is you are arguing about.
> Like Mark, when
> I'm arguing with a pro-MoQ'er, about details, is quite
> different to
> arguing with someone proposing an anti-MoQ alternative
> philosophy.
> (Though my conversations with Scott, Bo, Sam et al
> suggest, the
> difference is mainly one between a cup-half-full,
> cup-half-empty
> perspective, and a choice of language.)
>
> Post, the 2005 MoQ Conference I strongly support
> Mark's attempt to pin
> down a good working summary of what the MoQ actually
> is, for someone
> who might claim to subscribe to it. (It's open to
> debate, naturally,
> but it's a different debate.)
>
> Anything is much easier to analyse / destroy than to
> synthesie /
> construct. Evolution requires nurturing support as
> well as natural
> competition.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
>
>
> 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 Dec 03 2005 - 20:59:45 GMT