[MD] Nest of Diapers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark 17-11-06: Hello dmb.
A general argument may go like this:
If M believes X is intellectually dishonest, the conclusion is based  upon a 
definition of what intellectual dishonesty is.
Intellectual dishonesty requires a definition of what intellectual honesty  
is.
Intellectual honesty is an adherence to truth as a species of  quality:
 
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial  by 
jury.'
(McWatt. 2004. p. 95)

 
dmb:
I'm with Arlo 
here. In fact, I don't think any reasonable person could  conclude otherwise.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
What has Arlo suggested which you are agreeing with?
Perhaps the following provides a clue...
 
dmb: 
If anyone thinks that the hoas paper constitutes a  substantial rebuttal to 
the MOQ, it would be news to me.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
It would be news to me too.
I don't know of any such suggestion.
 
dmb:
It was an unkind and childish prank and 
simply doesn't deserve to be  published on a philosophical web site.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
It deserved to be read at an moq conference though.
Here is what dmb said about it:
"I have to say that Richard Loggins probably would have stole the show if  
he'd been there to deliver it in person. It was amazing, brilliant and original. 
 I know Annabell (beautiful Gav's beautiful gal), Ant and Bob were impressed 
by  it too."
 
dmb:
Again, I 
think Mark's accusations are unfounded and slanderous.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
What accusations are these precisely?

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.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
If you feel this is possible, i would be pleased to read it.
 
dmb:
They are both trying to get at Ant on the social 
level.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Could it be suggested that Anthony shot himself in the foot?
Could it be suggested that social self-humiliation is a good thing if it  
raises intellectual quality?
 
dmb:
There are no valid intellectual concerns here.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial  by 
jury.'
(McWatt. 2004. p. 95)
 
dmb:
Its just a pretense.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
 
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial  by 
jury.'
(McWatt. 2004. p. 95)

 
dmb:
And even if there were genuine concerns,
 
 
Mark 17-11-06:
 
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial  by 
jury.'
(McWatt. 2004. p. 95)


 
dmb:
making slanderous accusations is 
not a valid method of expressing  them.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
What slanderous accusations have been made dmb?
This claim is hollow without support.
If i have made slanderous remarks concerning Anthony, please present them  
here.
 
dmb:
I would have hoped that anyone could 
see the difference between  ridicule and debate.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
You're not making sense.
You come across as hysterical.

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.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Non of the papers delivered at the conference rebut the MoQ.
Does this mean they too have to go?
 
dmb:
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.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
Take a look at the following again:
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial  by 
jury.'
(McWatt. 2004. p. 95)
What you, and everyone else has to decide is this:
Which serves the moq better,
1. Deploy an editorial policy which erases all mention of the  hoax paper in 
all places, past, present and future, or,
2. Tell the truth.
Love,
Mark