[MD] Julian Baggini interview

[Horse]

Hi Ian

ian glendinning wrote:
> Hi Horse,
> 
> I have only one "grievance" here.
> 
> The fact that Ant's site passes for authoritative philosophical
> material on Pirsig's MoQ, whereas there is a distinct policy to
> present a positively edited bias, and not link (refer even in any
> academic sense) to any negative materials and criticise them
> constructively.

And why should he? I'm not sure what you mean by 'passes for 
authoritative philosophical material' cos that sounds a bit derogatory. 
Ant's site is full of good articles and essays showing the MoQ in a good 
light. Which is a lot more difficult than slagging off the MoQ as 
certain others have been known to do. It's a lot easier to be 
destructive than constructive.

> 
> It's Ant's right to do that, it's his site, but the public impression
> is important.

You've hit the nail on the head there Ian. It's Ant's site and if he 
chooses to represent the MoQ in the way he does then it's up to him. 
It's not like he's trying to damage the MoQ is it? Not like Glenn or 
Struan and how much time have you spent trying to persuade them not to 
do what they've done? And in Glenn's case continues to do.
I would have thought that the public impression of Ant's site was 
nothing but good. It looks great, it has great articles, links etc. and 
it _is_ authoritative. Along with moq.org it's also endorsed by Bob, 
which is more than can be said for most other sites.

> 
> (Quite independent of this thread, I have been pressing for more
> transparent "editing" of public facing materials, where considered
> necessary to "promote" MoQ for public consumption beyond critical
> philosophical debate. I will continue to pursue / support such
> initiatives.)
> 
> The only other points I've made are my own personal frustration at
> trying to point out privately to Ant over a long period, that he would
> be better to "clean up his act", than leave the misleading impression
> on his own site. 

You've lost me here. What 'misleading impression' and why does he need 
to clean up his act? What's to clean up? And more to the point, who 
appointed you as the one to do this? Ant and myself run our respective 
sites as _we_ see fit. We started them, we administer them, we pay for 
them and we maintain them. How's about I tell you how to run Psybertron? 
To be honest, given what's been going on over the last few days I'm more 
than a little concerned about giving permission to publish new material, 
as discussed a while back, on moq.org. If this is the sort of hassle I 
can expect if I don't agree to do what others want then I'm out.

 > When Mark made the same concern public of his own
> initiative, I have simply supported Mark on the objective points he is
> making. I did point out from the start that publicly linked copies of
> the full Baggini interview were in fact always available. Mark has his
> own motives.

I'm sure he does and now I hope that we can see an end to this and let 
me and Ant get on with doing what we do in our own way. Ant does a hell 
of a lot to get the MoQ promoted and personally I reckon we should just 
let him get on with it however the fuck he pleases. He's got a lot on 
his plate at the moment and the last thing he need is to be given shit 
for not not complying with other peoples wishes. As you've said the 
Baggini interview has been available from other sources and is now 
available again from moq.org. There is no need for Ant to link if he 
chooses not to.



Horse