[MD] Nest of Diapers

[david buchanan]

Mark said to Arlo:
...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,...

Arlo replied:
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.

dmb says:
It pretty much comes down to this, eh? Mark thinks that its intellectually 
dishonest for Ant to exclude the hoax paper from his site. I'm with Arlo 
here. In fact, I don't think any reasonable person could conclude otherwise. 
If anyone thinks that the hoas paper constitutes a substantial rebuttal to 
the MOQ, it would be news to me. It was an unkind and childish prank and 
simply doesn't deserve to be published on a philosophical web site. Again, I 
think Mark's accusations are unfounded and slanderous.

Mark said:
...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 replied:
If you are referring to the hoax, I don't believe it constitutes 
"intellectual concerns".  ...What it appears to me to be is a protection of 
social status against social level ridicule and attack.

dmb says:
If we're going to invoke the MOQ's moral code here, it would be easy to make 
a case that Mark and the hoaxsters are both guilty of using public 
humiliation as a weapon. They are both trying to get at Ant on the social 
level. There are no valid intellectual concerns here. Its just a pretense. 
And even if there were genuine concerns, making slanderous accusations is 
not a valid method of expressing them. I would have hoped that anyone could 
see the difference between ridicule and debate.

Mark said to Arlo:
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.

dmb says:
I think the question was more specific. The question is not about whether 
you've ever found a substantial rebuttal anywhere. The question of substance 
is aimed at the famously excluded hoax reference. That is the question. If 
the hoax is not a real rebuttal of anything, then there is no reason to 
include it. If it insults the Ant and the MOQ and it has no intellectual 
substance, then its absurd to expect anything other than exclusion. As far 
as editiorial decisions go, I'd say that's a no-brainer.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style, 
age, and price. Try it! 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&tcode=wlmtagline