[MD] Julian Baggini interview

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark and all:

Oh, good god, here we go again...

Glenn said to  Mark:
...if you don't want DMB calling you a wanker this weekend, maybe you  should 
explain what you are  on about.

dmb replied:
Hey Mark,  you are "a wanker this weekend".

Mark replied:
...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.

Now dmb says:
It appears that my humor was not understood  as such once again. Must be the 
medium. In any case, I was joking about the  ambiguity of Glenn's comment. It 
was a language joke. You know, one guys  says, "Call me a taxi" and the other 
guy says, "Okay, you're a taxi." Then  they both laugh.

Besides, I thought you were a wanker last weekend too.  Or whenever it was 
you started this thing.
 
Mark 6-11-06: Hello dmb.
As i said, you fell into Glenn's trap.
I'm going to take this post into Anthony's old Philosophy department and  
show it those whom i think it may interest.
I want to get clear how academia views the suppression of facts.
And i want to hear what they make of this ranting of yours - ranting which  
appears to be sanctioned by Anthony McWatt.
 
Mark said to Glenn:
The issue if one of editorial control. ...There was  no need for Anthony to 
edit it either. It's as simple as that Glenn. ...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.

Mark asked dmb:
What is it in my above  response to Glenn that you disagree with dmb?

dmb says:
Well, you seem  to be all self-righteous about slandering Ant.
 
Mark 6-11-06: Facts are not slanderous.
 
dmb:
You're talking 
about Ant's web site as if the free world depended on  some imagined purity 
of Bagganininess.
 
Mark 6-11-06: Anthony's credibility may depend on his site not the  World's.
 
dmb:
The implication is that you are some kind of watchdog for 
intellectual  honesty and Ant is the rat that got in under the fence.
 
Mark 6-11-06: As a matter of fact, Anthony does not give an honest  account 
of the conference.
 
dmb:
Its 
outrageously arrogant and hopelessly goofy and the same time.
 
Mark 6-11-06: I'll see what my philosophy department thinks.
 
dmb:
Besides, 
neither Ant nor anybody else that I ever met has the power to  control 
opinion or mediate information.
 
Mark 6-11-06: It may be the case that you are not aware your opinion had  
been influenced or the information you are exposed to mediated.
Fox news for example. Yes, i know you ain't met 'em, except, 'thru' your  
Televisual viewing pleasure - And now for a word about a new type of  arselicker.
 
dmb:
Its just a web site man, somebody else's web 
site.
 
Mark 6-11-06: It's just a Fox news network man, somebody else's news  network 
man.
 
dmb:
Don't you think this whole thing is a bit paranoid and out of  
proportion?
 
Mark 6-11-06: What whole 'thing'? Asking questions or avoiding answering  
them?
Presenting facts or suppressing them?
 
dmb:
Can't you just start a blog or something?
 
Mark 6-11-06: I can play the guitar too well to waste time doing  that.
I'll send you an example if your hard drive isn't full.
 
dmb:
Why do you guys suppose you can tell Ant what to do?
 
Mark 6-11-06: I don't know who, 'you guys' are and what, 'suppose they can  
tell' but i'm not telling anyone to do anything.
I'm asking questions of Anthony, not you.
 
dmb:
Does he tell you what to do.
 
Mark 6-11-06: No. He's free to ask me any question he likes though.
 
dmb:
Have contracts been signed?
 
Mark 6-11-06: I'm not in the Anthony McWatt fanclub you founded if that's  
what you mean?
 
dmb:
Are you guys married?
 
Mark 6-11-06: Oh, i see. You are using the Fox news network ploy  of 
combination in the same sentence all the time so stupid people get to  thinkin' they 
are connected in some sense, like the ex-tyrant of Iraq and a  certain 
terrorist.
 
dmb:
I really don't get it.
 
Mark 6-11-06: You will do.

Mark said:
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.

dmb  says:
My problem is with morality or the MOQ, but I do find it odd that you  claim 
moral sanction for this..
 
Mark 6-11-06: Moral sanction for what?
 
dmb:
...because I think you're trying to wound somebody for 
no good  reason.
 
Mark 6-11-06: Don't you consider people can wound themselves by the choices  
they make?
 
dmb:
I think its cruel and self-righteous and erroneous and not 
particularly  moral at all.
 
Mark 6-11-06: It has become known what Anthony has done on his site and  it's 
not gone down well. I had nothing to do with that, it was Anthony's  
decision. It's his site. He edits it. People can see him doing it. He doesn't  need 
you or me or anyone to make himself the object of his own choices.


Mark said:
...i DO have the right to ask questions. Do you  disagree?

dmb says:
Sure, that's what its all about. I'm asking  questions about your questions, 
aren't I? But you're not just asking  questions. You are making accusations, 
but implication if not  explicitly.
 
Mark 6-11-06: And i'm answering them aren't i?
Facts are not accusations.

Mark said:
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, honesty is  valued.

dmb says:
Yes, everybody is in favor of honesty. And honest  editing depends on honest 
editors. That's a real solid theory.
 
Mark 6-11-06: I was helping you with your suggestion that, 'editing isn't  
inherently bad' statement. You know? The one you forgot to include here.
 
dmb:
But you have been implying that Ant is 
the dishonest kind of editor for  no good reason.
 
Mark 6-11-06: If Anthony gets back in the driving seat instead of leaving  it 
to you we may find out.
 
dmb:
I think your concern, that 
his presentation of the material constitutes  some kind of deception, is 
entirely without merit. I'm not even sure if its  honest. ;-)
 
Mark 6-11-06: Make up you mind quickly then.

Mark asked:
If it  (the hoax) doesn't matter, why hide it?

dmb says:
What hoax? I don't  know what you're talking about. There was no hoax. Shhhh. 
don't mention the  hoax, whatever you do. But seriously, your question is a 
good example of you  accusatory implicatons. Why "hide" it?
 
Mark 6-11-06: This is a fact. Facts cannot constitute accusations.
 
dmb:
The word implies 
a deception.
 
Mark 6-11-06: If Anthony tells us why he did what he did we can find out  
can't we?
 
dmb:
But I guess you'd have to put it that way. Otherwise the 
question  becomes, "If it doesn't matter, then why include it?"
 
Mark 6-11-06: No, this is not a symmetrical argument because it's not an  
argument. We are observing the facts as they happened.
Anthony can tell us all why he does what he does if he wishes.
If he does not tell us why he does what he does people will speculate for  
themselves.
Do you want me to speculate or ask Anthony?
 
dmb:
Its like the 
fact that I'm feeling like I might throw up right now. I'm  not trying to 
cover up the feeling or hide my illness. It just doesn't seem  to matter, so 
I didn't mention it.
 
Mark 6-11-06: That you feel ill and about to chunder may not be an  
observable fact.

dmb:
Sorry about the puke on your shoes, by the way.
 
Mark 6-11-06: I'm sorry about the puke in your brain mate.

dmb  said:
Apparently, the hoaxster himself is not bothered by this edit and can't  even 
see what you're on about.

Mark replied:
The hoaxster hasn't  given an opinion on that matter. If he has, show me 
where?

dmb  says:
Glenn was the one who said he didn't see what you were going on about  and I 
thought he was the hoaxster.
 
Mark 6-11-06: Pardon me, but you stated the hoaxer was not bothered about  
the edit. He has not said he was not bothered about the edit. He said he could  
not see what i was going on about.
 
dmb:
He said so in the exchanges you posted. Out of 
nowhere like a bull in a  china closet and all that. Top of this post, his 
quote warns you to "explain  what you are on about".
 
Mark 6-11-06: He's not referring to the edit but asking why i'm asking  
questions about the interview at all.
 
He says you better 
explain or else I'll insult you with names like  "taxi" and "cab".
 
Mark 6-11-06: I'm not insulted by name calling. I find other behaviour far  
more worrying.
Love,
Mark