[MD] Nest of Vipers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[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!
 
Mark 17-11-06: Hello Arlo.
Fair comment.
The hoax paper isn't going to go away in a hurry - it's all over the  net.
Little point in denying it ever happened then.
In fact, this may be a good reason not to deny it happened as it's so well  
referenced just in case people suspect dishonesty.

[Arlo]
Ant's  assertation that the hoax was personal and not substantive is fair to 
me.
 
Mark 17-11-06:
There's not one syllable in the hoax paper which is personal in that  it is 
attacking, insulting, threatening, abusive, or in any sense  denigrating to 
anyone let alone Anthony.
 
Arlo:
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 17-11-06:
They miss the truth Arlo.
If truth has no value in this forum i think it's all the worse for  it.

[Arlo]
If you are referring to the hoax, I don't believe it  constitutes 
"intellectual
concerns".
 
Mark 17-11-06:
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and  trial  
by 
jury.'
(McWatt. 2004. p. 95)
The hoax itself is a pile of crap. No doubt about that.
The problem isn't with the paper itself; the problem lies with the manner  of 
it's treatment post-conference.
It is a matter of historical truth the paper was delivered at the  conference.
Anthony and Horse have decided to positively remove any reference to this  
event, and this extended to asking other site owners to do the same.
What people can decide for themselves is whether this deliberate action is  
low intellectual quality.
 
Love,
Mark