[MD] Julian Baggini interview

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Glenn said to Mark:
You see, the plain fact that Ant doctored the  interview  doesn't explain the 
point of your last post in the thread  which shows that Baggini did in fact 
send Ant the transcript. What is the  relevance of this? Ant has certainly 
not denied this and if you don't want  DMB calling you a wanker this weekend, 
maybe you should explain what you are  on about.

dmb says:
Hey Mark, you are "a wanker this weekend."
 
Mark 5-11-06: Hello dmb.
I never questioned whether Baggini sent Anthony the transcript.
Therefore, Anthony never had to deny that which he was never accused  of.
I indicated the transcript was sent to Anthony to verify its  existence, 
because Anthony told me it didn't, 'really' exist.
So, in fact, you don't have to call me, "a wanker this weekend," because i  
didn't do what Glenn says i did in order for you to call me, "a wanker this  
weekend."
I think you've fallen into Glenn's little trap dmb.
To be straight with you, i could see he was playing you like a fiddle and  
i'm sorry you're so easily manipulated.

Mark said to Glenn:
The issue  if one of editorial control. I hope Julian Baggini didn't edit his 
interview  with Pirsig and published it in it's entirety. There was no need 
for Anthony  to edit it either. It's as simple as that Glenn. If you want 
more then i'm  happy to debate the philosophy of editorial control. The issue 
is an old one  and is relevant to issues concerning freedom and openness in 
society. Those  who seek to mediate information seek to control opinion and 
we all have  experience of how that can be morally  reprehensible i should 
think. At  the intellectual level the issue of openness becomes paramount, 
and i think  the MoQ supports this view.

dmb says:
Oh, well aren't you the  protector of all that is right and good.
 
Mark 5-11-06: What is it in my above response to Glenn that you disagree  
with dmb?
 
dmb:
You're a real freaking superhero. Sigh.
 
Mark 5-11-06: When i use the term, 'moral' i'm using it in the context of  
the MOQ as always.
When i make what i feel to be a moral decision, i use the MOQ as a  guide.
Please allow me to ask you a question?
If everyone used the MOQ as a moral guide, would this be a good thing for  
Humanity?
 
dmb:
I think Ant gets to edit Ant's website, you wanker,
 
Mark 5-11-06: Who's denying him editing his website?
Not me.
However, i DO have the right to ask questions.
Do you disagree?
 
dmb:
and you're making a huge deal out of nothing.
 
Mark 5-11-06: And you're not like? Like, starting with the 'wanker' stuff  
isn't making a huge deal?
 
dmb:
I hardly think editing is inherently dishonest.
 
Mark 5-11-06: Who said it was? I didn't did i?
No.
Editing is dishonest when the motives of the editor are dishonest.
Editing is honest when the motives of the editor are honest.
In an intellectual context, (and i'm using the MOQ as a guide here) honesty  
is valued.
 
dmb:
I think its perfectly reasonable to exclude 
reference to the conference  hoax simply because such a thing hardly 
constitutes a valid form of  criticism or any kind of serious engagment.
 
Mark 5-11-06: Anthony didn't give this as a response to my  questions.
I think you should allow Anthony to speak for himself dmb before people get  
the wrong idea.
 
dmb:
Why should a juvenile prank be allowed to distract the reader from the  topic?
 
Mark 5-11-06: Who want's to go to great lengths to hide juvenile  pranks?
 
dmb:
Is the hoax relevant to anything that matters?
 
Mark 5-11-06: If it doesn't matter, why hide it?
 
dmb:
Apparently, the hoaxster himself 
is not bothered by this edit and can't  even see what you're on about.
 
Mark 5-11-06: The hoaxster hasn't given an opinion on that matter. If he  
has, show me where?
The hoaxster wanted to know why i was, 'wound up' i believe.
I told him i wound myself up for trusting robertpirsig.org because tutors  
and students at the Philosophy department at Liverpool University (the same  
department in which Anthony studied for his MA and PhD) had been directed there  
by me in search of the Baggini interview. When it was found not to be there, i 
 asked Anthony why. I don't think his responses are good ones.
 
dmb:
As I 
recall, the other issue of editorial control had to do with Ant's  objection 
to an unflattering photo of himself being posted by Ian  somewhere.
 
Mark 5-11-06: I have no idea what this photo business is dmb.
 
dmb:
That's so trivial it doesn't even deserve a response.
 
Mark 5-11-06: Photos and stuff are a far cry from what i'm on  about. It's 
nothing to do with me.

dmb:
I think you and Ian are both being cruel to Ant for no good reason.  And it 
doesn't make you look particulary open, honest or even decent.
 
Mark 5-11-06: First of all, i speak for myself.
Secondly, if you think asking a few questions is cruel, then God help you  if 
you should ever find yourself exposed to what i have an idea cruelty is  like.
Third, I think you will find, upon reviewing the facts, that it is Anthony,  
who not only looks, but actually IS, un-opnen. The same goes for  dishonesty.
As far as decency goes, i don't think it comes into it. Yet.
 
Love,
Mark