[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo]
MSNBC ran the story "Is Wal-Mart Good or Bad? It's Still a Mystery" 
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9925824/), which concluded... "'The evidence 
is, on balance, more consistent with the claims of critics of Wal-Mart, 
although questions remain', the researchers concluded."

[Platt]
MSNBC isn't biased, of course.

[Arlo]
Everyone who disagrees with what already believe is "biased", Platt. I 
don't accept everything with blind faith, but when many indicators are 
pointing in one direction, something shown by many independent 
investigations, I give that credence over "what I want to believe".

For example, I had similar feelings about Starbucks, but the majority of 
evidence about Starbucks is that it helps local economies. So, I accept 
that (provisionally, of course, as with all things) even though my initial 
instinct was shown to be wrong.

[Arlo]
Of course, I expected your "academic" response in denying the validity of 
any article that disagrees with your worldview.

[Platt]
You mean like you deny any voice that disagrees with yours?

[Arlo]
See above.

[Platt]
How many studies are "far too many" and who sponsored the negative ones?

[Arlo]
Who sponsored the positive ones? Why doesn't that concern you? Oh right, 
the liberal conspiracy thing again.

[Platt]
Like you always read articles that present an opposite view? Pardon my laugh..

[Arlo]
Just more evidence that you know nothing about what goes on the academy. I 
read articles all the time, in many domain fields, that present ideas 
counter to what I "already believe". Sometimes they change my mind. 
Sometimes they don't. I base this on the cogent argument made by the 
author, her references, analysis and synthesis of ideas. Not on blind faith 
to party ideology. You want another example, my views on "eminent domain" 
have significantly changed by "conservative" articles I've read. So, you 
can try to paint me as being as reliant on "blind faith to ideology" as you 
are, but you're sadly mistaken.

[Arlo previously]
Interesting response. I'd say Pirsig focused our cultural light on a new 
way of thinking about values. Do you consider that "propaganda"?

[Platt]
No, but I don't see Pirsig going around thumping his views from college 
lecterns to captured audiences at every opportunity.

[Arlo]
Really, I thought you wanted more conservative professors to thump their 
views from college lecturns? I thought the problem was not the thumping, 
but that their was a conspiracy to keep conservatives from thumping? At any 
rate, are you saying now that the MOQ should not be thumped from college 
lecturns? Can one teach the MOQ without thumping it?

And, should we not be promoting the MOQ? Aren't we in effect thumping it? 
Should I not give copies of ZMM as presents? Should I not argue Pirsig's 
insights when I am in a position to do so?

[Arlo previously]
As for "staying out of the way of Walmart", nonsense. While I won't 
advocated government shutting it down, I remain vocal and active in getting 
the facts out about Walmart.

[Platt]
Why? So you can get government to prevent Walmart from opening a store in a 
particular locality?  You call that "staying out of the way?"

[Arlo]
So people can make informed decisions about what effects their consumer 
choices have.

Arlo