[MD] Nest of Vipers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

All,

At the risk of stirring up a now-calming nest of vipers, I feel  I must 
chime in regarding the broohaha that transpired over the Baggini  interview.
 
Mark 16-11-06: Hi Arlo.
You, 'must' chime in?
Surely you have the option of not chiming in Arlo?
The first post regarding the Julian Baggini interview was posted by me  on 
30th October 2006.
Although you have chosen to generalise concepts rather  than specify 
individuals Arlo, i wish to distance myself from any Viperish  tendencies.
I asked why the Baggini interview was not available on robertpirsig.org and  
moq.org
I did not know it at the time, but Anthony and Horse decided in late 2005  to 
remove all reference to the 2005 hoax paper from thier respective  sites.
So, when the Baggini interview referred to the hoax paper, that could not  be 
made available.
 
Arlo:
My apologies upfront to Ant and Horse if this launches more  silliness.
 
Mark 16-11-06:
What previous silliness do you have in mind Arlo?
Lying in, or asking questions in an open forum?
 
Arlo:
With due respect to those who feel the integrity of the MOQ  threatened, I 
think Ant's editorial authority has been  mischaracterized.
 
 
Mark 16-11-06:
I can only speak for myself Arlo, but i have questioned Anthony's editorial  
policy, not his rights.
Do be clear.

 
Arlo:
It would 
certainly be an abuse of this power should Ant claim editorial  rights over 
anything published as "MOQ". Apart from offering his help, if he  actually 
_demanded_ editorial rights over anything any one of us would  consider, 
this would constitute a clear immoral transgression of his  "authority".
 
Mark 16-11-06:
Until you brought the subject up just now i had not considered Anthony's  
editorial rights.
I have considered his editorial policy though.
 
Arlo:
If I wanted to launch a Pirsig-related site, and Ant told me what I could  
and 
what I could not put on that site, this would be an abuse worth  condemning.
 
 
Mark 16-11-06:
I note you do not condemn editorial policy here. You condemn editorial  
control.

 
Arlo:
But we are talking about _his_ site. It may function for some as the  
"official" site, but I don't see any such claim made on any of the  pages.
 
Mark 16-11-06:
The editorial policies of individuals is an appropriate issue of  debate.
That individuals have a right to edit their own sites is not under  debate.
(Remember i speak for myself and appeal to previous posts submitted by  me.)
 
Arlo:
On the contrary, the disclaimer is that it is "primarily concerned  with the 
philosophy of Robert Pirsig". Any reasonable person reading this  would 
conclude that it is (1) not comprehensive, (2) not canonical, and (3)  
expansive per the views of the site author. (To note, even moq.org does not  
make a claim to be "official" in any sense. Visitors are told exactly what  
it is, what is there, and what to expect.)
 
Mark 16-11-06:
To Note: I have questioned Horse's editorial policy, not his rights.
 
The editorial policies of individuals is an appropriate issue of  debate.
That individuals have a right to edit their own sites is not under  debate.


Arlo:
Ant and Horse do an amazing job with their respective sites, and I  am 
thankful they take the time to invest heavily in a resource we can all  rely 
on.
 
Mark 16-11-06:
The reliability of these sites may depend in some measure upon  editorial 
policy Arlo.
For example, these sites cannot be relied upon to mention the 2005  
conference hoax paper.
Note: This example is the result of an editorial policy which is an  
appropriate issue of debate.
That individuals have a right to edit their own sites is not under  debate.
 
Arlo:
Are there things _I_ would do differently? Maybe. But that's life.
 
Mark 16-11-06:
This statement amounts to: 'Editorial policy varies between  individuals.'
More generally: 'Individuals vary,' which is banal.
 
Arlo:
Should anyone be so motivated, however, to do better, the great  thing about 
the free market is that they can give it their best.
 
Mark 16-11-06:
We judge the best on their editorial policy.
 
Arlo:
Indeed, a quick scan 
of DNS availability reveals that many website  domains are available for an 
intrepid entrepreneur to "do better". For me, I  am satisfied with the labor 
of Ant and Horse, but those who are not should  be encouraged to create a 
site that they believe is of a higher  quality.
 
 
Mark 16-11-06:
This statement in the context of criticising editorial policy is a  manifesto 
for controlled media: "Don't ask questions regarding Fox news  editorial 
policy, buy your own news network if you don't like it!"

 
Arlo:
(This is, of course, not to 
say suggestions should not be made. Quality  ones, I'm sure, would be 
appreciated, even if they are not used.)
 
Mark 16-11-06:
You have just agreed with my statement that: 'The editorial policies of  
individuals is an appropriate issue of debate.'

Just my (admittedly late) two cents. (That's what I get for taking time  
away from the computer).

Arlo
 
Mark 16-11-06:
This post is a drop in your own editorial standards Arlo IMHO.
That's a criticism of your editorial policy and not a denial of your  rights.
Love,
Mark