[MD] Nest of Vipers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[Mark]
You, 'must' chime in? Surely you have the option of not chiming  in Arlo?

[Arlo]
Although I was away, I was contacted off-list by  several of the involvees 
in this exchange. Since my stance was solicited,  but never given 
publically, I felt I owed it to both Ant and Horse to make a  public 
proclamation of where I stood.
 
Mark 17-11-06: Hello Arlo.
I did not contact you off-list about this because i make it a policy  not to 
contact people off-list.
If people contact me off-list i ask them to be open and get things  on-list.
And here we find a potentially dangerous problem Arlo: Off-list  
orchestration of on-list presentation. This is in the area of controlled  media.
(I use the term, 'media' to refer to all medium of communications.)
I am not accusing you of habitually discussing issues off-list Arlo, but i  
have seen and heard enough to have a fair idea there are people who do allot of 
 it.
It seems individuals are on occasion, 'whipped,' to use the British  
Parliamentary term.
'Whipping' is a device used by Party leaders to negotiate the co-operation  
of Party members on the occasion of House votes. Whipping keeps people in  line.
I find this a suppression of intellectual freedom of expression Arlo.

[Mark]
I asked why the Baggini interview was not available on  robertpirsig.org and 
moq.org.

[Arlo]
I was not singling any one  out. There were several who felt it was a misuse 
of editorial rights not to  print the "entire interview". There were several 
who felt it was not.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
The issue is one of policy rather than rights.
Anthony and Horse do as they wish, and the rest of us are free to comment  on 
it.

[Mark]
What previous silliness do you have in mind Arlo? Lying  in, or asking 
questions in an open forum?

[Arlo]
The silliness  that there is abusive editorial control that is either 
stifling or  whitewashing the MOQ. This was hinted at in the exchanges.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
I do feel TPM is a good publication for the MoQ to be associated  with.
It is an indication of how seriously the MoQ is being taken.
Baggini's interview style is irrelevant.

[Mark]
I can only speak  for myself Arlo, but i have questioned Anthony's editorial 
policy, not his  rights. Do be clear.

[Arlo]
An editorial policy of his own site. That  was my point.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
To be sure. robertpirsig.org is Anthony's site and he organises it as he  
sees fit.

[Mark]
I note you do not condemn editorial policy here. You  condemn editorial 
control.

[Arlo]
Even Wikipedia has "editorial  policy". I wonder if it is possible to every 
NOT have one.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
To organise a site is to employ editorial policy through deliberate  
employment or ignorance.
Assuming Anthony is the same man who had a PhD awarded i feel safe to  
further assume he's a competent organiser.
 
Arlo:
At any rate, I condemn (or would condemn) editorial control 
that  extended beyond one's jurisdiction. Certainly Ant's site is within his  
jurisdiction. Mine would not  be.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Only Horse can search his own conscience and knows if he is doing what he  
does for Anthony or himself?
I have heard Ian was asked to change details on psybertron.
Strictly speaking, moq.org and psybertron are outside Anthony's remit as  
these are not his sites are they?

[Mark]
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]
There was a lot of energy expended on what Ant "should" or  "should not" do 
with regard to his site. A suggestion is a suggestion.  Several went beyond 
that. If you feel yours did not, I make no  argument.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
I may have said, 'A prominent MoQ interview 'should' be freely available'  or 
'a prominent MoQ interview 'should' be on a site like robertpirsig.org' but  
if i did it was an expression of my opinion. e.g. 'I think a prominent MoQ  
interview should be available on a site such as robertpirsig.org.'
I did not intend: 'I am instructing you to put that prominent interview on  
your site.'
Will trawl through my posts and report back what i actually  said.

[Mark]
For example, these sites cannot be relied upon to mention  the 2005 
conference hoax paper.

[Arlo]
Why should they?
 
Mark 17-11-06:
That is a sound question, but it does not alter the fact that habitual  
reliance may be misguided.
A second example would be, 'These sites cannot be relied upon to provide a  
free copy of the Baggini interview,' which is were my habitual reliance fell  
down Arlo.
 
Arlo:
If you feel the "hoax paper" is somehow critical, put it 
up on your  website. At any rate, I googled "MOQ conference" today, and  
Glenn/Brad/Struan's site comes up ABOVE Ant's or Ian's. So anyone looking  
for that information will easily find it.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
I'm not concerned about the hoax paper here.
The current editorial policy at robertpirsig.org rules out all mention of  
the paper no matter where the reference is.

[Mark]
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]
Ant's site  does not advertise to be something that it is not.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Anthony's site does not advertise itself to be a paragon of integrity, but  
we assume it is a good example because the site owner has spent allot of time  
and energy thinking about Quality.
 
Arlo:
And I do not 
like Fox's editorial policy, which is why I go elsewhere  for my news.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
You would not advise someone with the same view to buy a news network on  
that basis would you?
However, you would support an individual's right to be able to criticise  the 
Fox news network.
 
Arlo:
But 
it would be the height of arrogance to assume Fox News should  change their 
policy because I tell them to.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Indeed.
If that which is displayed at robertpirsig.org was as powerful and  
structured as Fox news then i wouldn't be wasting my time.
 
Arlo:
Not to mention that sites like Guerrilla 
News and other leftist news  outlets did exactly what you are mocking. They 
saw a policy among the major  news media they did not like, and they started 
their own oppositional  sites.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
In time there may be opposition if enough people feel it's all a bit too  
cosy and sewn up for freedom of expression.
I personally don't have $Billions to challenge Fox  though!

[Mark]
This post is a drop in your own editorial standards  Arlo IMHO.

[Arlo]
I'm sorry you feel that way, Mark. Despite  disagreeing with you on this, I 
still find your posts of high quality.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Are you sure we disagree?
Once the distinction between policy and rights is clarified i feel sure  
there is little to disagree about.
I found your initial post surprising because i regard you to be a reliable  
source of quality ideas Arlo.
But that's the trouble with habitual reliance isn't it? ;-)
Love and best wishes,
Mark