[MD] Nest of Vipers

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Although I was away, I was contacted off-list by several of the involvees in
this exchange.

[Mark]
I did not contact you off-list about this because i make it a policy not to
contact people off-list.

[Arlo]
I didn't say you did. But if you did, I would not have minded.

[Mark]
If people contact me off-list i ask them to be open and get things on-list.

[Arlo]
I don't sweat private correspondance. Largely, I enjoy the social relations it
brings.

[Mark]
And here we find a potentially dangerous problem Arlo: Off-list orchestration of
on-list presentation.

[Arlo]
What about orchestration by ex-list members?

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
My off-list contact general is supportive (don't want to flood the list),
topical (you want to talk about X), or social (I am quite happy to have
expanded my social relations with those whom I feel are Good people). I thought
this was the norm?

[Mark]
'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.

[Arlo]
I was contacted off-line by more people seeking opposition to "Party Line" than
for it. But, I'd ask you to consider that "whipping" can occur by
"revolutionaries" as much as entrenched authority.

[Mark]
Anthony and Horse do as they wish, and the rest of us are free to comment on it.

[Arlo]
You certainly are. Did I suggest otherwise? Indeed, my recent post was also a
freedom of commenting. Was it not?

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
It may be a good publication. And your considerations are valid. And I don't
think Ant's decision had anything to do with Baggini's interview style, even if
that mattered.

[Mark]
Only Horse can search his own conscience and knows if he is doing what he does
for Anthony or himself?

[Arlo]
Or Glenn/Struan/Richard?

[Mark]
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?

[Arlo]
If Ant or Horse asked Ian to change details on his site, this would be a
transgression of their authority. Unless it was a simple suggestion, as you say
is acceptable and appropriate.

[Mark]
Will trawl through my posts and report back what i actually  said.

[Arlo]
No need, Mark. If you say your posts were of a certain manner, than I believe
you. The archives are accessible for anyone to view.

[Mark on the hoax paper]
That is a sound question, but it does not alter the fact that habitual reliance
may be misguided.

[Arlo]
Do you mean the idea that visitors to these sites may be habituated to go no
further?

[Mark]
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]
My question is, _Should_ these sites be relied upon for ..... (fill in the
blank)? I author a site on motorcycling. You wont find everything there about
Harleys. Is that problematic? Also, consider "www.peirce.org", probably the
premiere site for Charles Peirce information is hardly comprehensive in this
regard. Is this problematic? I've never felt so. Peirce was a drinker, and many
of his latter writings were, um, authored under inebriation. You won't find
that on peirce.org. Does that make it "whipped"?

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
Again, Mark, I find myself asking "so?". If you presented a hoax paper at a
Nietzsche Conference, would you expect it to be documented on their website?

[Mark]
However, you would support an individual's right to be able to criticise the Fox
news network.

[Arlo]
Mark, I support your right to criticize Ant. Hell, you can make a website called
"AntsEditorialismSucks.com" for all I care. But your right to criticize also
entails my right to support. No?

[Mark]
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!

[Arlo]
Hey, I am all for organized and reasoned opposition. I am still waiting for
Ham's Renegade Bunch to deliver. Ask yourself, if you typed in "MOQ Conference"
and wound up on G/S/R's website, what would you find? Is there a substantive
rebuttal to the MOQ? Is there a paper solidifying resistence or a statement of
reasoned opposition? If there were, I think he'd be better serving his
condemnation than relying on ridicule. 

[Mark]
Are you sure we disagree? Once the distinction between policy and rights is
clarified i feel sure  there is little to disagree about

[Arlo]
You may be right, Mark. If you think I am being critical of your right to make
suggestions or be openly critical, I am not. 

[Mark]
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? ;-)

[Arlo]
Well, we can't all be perfect all of the time. ;-)