[MD] Nest of Vipers

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
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]
Here is a simple suggestion for you: Kill Glenn Bradford. It's only a simple
suggestion!

[Arlo]
That's hardly a "simple suggestion". The complexities of orchestrating murder
are intense. Ask O.J.

But, I was not involved, nor am aware of, any suggestions made to even begin to
talk about whether they were transgressive or appropriate (or silly). That is
between those involved to negotiate out.

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

[Mark]
No. If people found themselves going further there would be no point in using
the site in the first place.

[Arlo]
I think I may disagree with a premise here, Mark. And that is how people search
for information on the web. There is, I'd agree, a documented tendecy to go to
only those sites that appear on the first or second (and there is a drop off
there) page of search results. But there is also a documented pattern of use
that people typically follow links three to four deep when searching for
information. That is, people on Ant's site would follow a link to Psybertron,
then follow one of Ian's links, then another and then another (so long as the
sites appeared well-maintained, even _if the content shifts_ (came looking for
Pirsig info and ended up on a Sonoma Valley wine tour site). So, generally
speaking, its reasonable to conclude that most people coming to Ant's site will
find, at the very least, information on the hoax and the interview, even if the
links are three sites away!

[Arlo previously]
My question is, _Should_ these sites be relied  upon for ..... (fill in the
blank)?

[Mar]
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?

[Arlo]
Sorry. I meant the question as rhetorical. That is, in framing a discussion on
editorial policy, we should specify upfront what it is that we believe a site
SHOULD do. In this case, the question is comprehensiveness. My position is that
most people do not have an expectation for this. And those that DO will find
their 'Net experience poor overall, not just with regards to Ant's or Horse's
sites. 

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
Ant's assertation that the hoax was personal and not substantive is fair to me.
As such, I hardly see what anyone is missing, other than the knowledge that
someone made fun of Ant, Pirsig and the MOQ. If G/S/R had authored a
substantive rebuttal, as others on the list have talked about doing, I am sure
it would receive mention.

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
If you are referring to the hoax, I don't believe it constitutes "intellectual
concerns". Ham, for example, has long criticized Pirsig for lacking an ontology
(or is it teleology? both?), and its reliance on "collectivism", are what
amounts to an intellectual concern. Should someone seek to silence these types
of criticisms to present an illusion of a flawless metaphysical frame, rather
than respond to the criticisms, then we'd be talking about serious intellectual
erosion. What it appears to me to be is a protection of social status against
social level ridicule and attack. 

[Mark]
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.

[Arlo]
Well, I am glad to hear the first part, and sorry to hear the second.

[Mark]
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]
Don't mean to bring you down, Mark. And yes, there is certainly intellectual
labor yet to be done.