[MD] Nest of Vipers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

<snip>

[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 17-11-06: Hello Arlo,
A dangerous problem.

[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 17-11-06:
No problem. I was considering a specific  activity.

[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 17-11-06:
I have considered it recently and one would have to be  consistent.

[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 17-11-06:
Yes.

[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 17-11-06:
Richard a pseudonym.
These people have their motives and if they find themselves published in  TPM 
i'm sure they will promote that exposure.

[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 17-11-06:
Here is a simple suggestion for you: Kill Glenn Bradford.
It's only a simple suggestion!

<snip>
 
[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 17-11-06:
No. If people found themselves going further there would be no point in  
using the site in the first place.
This is a good argument for making the site as comprehensive as  possible.
If not robertpirsig.org then moq.org

[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)?
 
Mark 17-11-06:
It worries me when a post lapses into a series of questions.
If you have a position, can you not state it with confidence rather than  
present question upon question?
To list those things robertpirsig.org may be best thought of in reliability  
would take considerable time.
Having said that, please remember Mr. Pirsig's interviews are as rare as  
Rocking Horse shit, so when one comes along i do not feel it is incredible to  
suggest one may feel confident in supposing it will be presented on at least one 
 of two main sites concerning things Pirsigian.
This is especially true i feel of moq.org which archives rare articles and  
publications.
When this does not happen, the bullshit detector begins to tingle.
 
Arlo:
I author a site on motorcycling. You wont find everything there  about
Harleys. Is that problematic?
 
Mark 17-11-06:
If Harley Davidson had not produced a new model in some considerable time  
and then suddenly advanced one people could be forgiven for wondering why you  
didn't show an interest.
 
Arlo:
Also, consider "www.peirce.org", probably the
premiere site for Charles  Peirce information is hardly comprehensive in this
regard. Is this  problematic?
 
Mark 17-11-06:
A new book by Peirce found languishing in a dusty cellar would be expected  
to receive a mention.
TPM interview isn't a new Harley or book but there is so little public  
exposure for the MoQ it warrants attention i feel.
 
Arlo:
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 17-11-06:
You know enough to be aware about the drinking.

[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 17-11-06:
You are missing the point Arlo.
If a policy intends to omit all reference to an event then any future  
references may be omitted also.
This may lead to some pretty ridiculous results if it is strictly adhered  to.
For example, you may find yourself omitted, or me.
Omitting Robert Pirsig mentioning the hoax paper in response to a direct  
question sends out some worrying perceptions not only of Anthony, but of Robert  
Pirsig also, because the site is called, robertpirig.org and Mr. Pirsig is 
alive  and well.
A site named after a living person could be forgiven for representing that  
individual.
If i began a site called, eltonjohnisatwat.org his lawyers would have  
something to say about it.

[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 17-11-06:
I'm criticising Anthony's editorial policy and any ripple policy fanning  out 
into related sites.
You have a right to support for sure.
Support comes in a number of varieties:
Intellectual support.
Social support.
Biological support.
When social support undermines Intellectual integrity it is immoral by MoQ  
lights.
To put this another way, supporting Anthony's social status while eroding  
Intellectual concerns is immoral.
These exchanges between you and I are intellectually informed; that is my  
conceit anyway.
But i have enjoyed exchanges here which smack of pure social support and i  
feel this to be abhorrent.
In fact, Anthony appeals to the same position when he argues for the  removal 
of Baggini's questions: He argues the philosophical essence of the  
correspondence is best presented as a distilled essay. This is not true of  moq.org

[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?
 
Mark 17-11-06:
All these questions are a bit of a drag Arlo. But i  endeavour to answer them 
all.
I have not found a substantive rebuttal of the moq anywhere. I've not found  
a substantive verification anywhere either.
 
Arlo:
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 17-11-06:
There has been some reasoned opposition, which is welcomed  intellectually.
Unreasoned condemnation is seen for what it is.
Ridicule is out of order.

[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. ;-)
 
Mark 17-11-06:
You'll do for me Arlo.
Mark