[MD] Nest of Vipers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[Mark]
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]
So, since the paper itself is bereft of any  intellectual valuable content, I
just don't see the "lesson" you feel needs  to be articulated on these sites.
 
 
Mark 18-11-06: Hello Arlo,
If you wish to frame a question in terms of lessons i suppose one may say  
that complete openness and honesty in one's affairs is an example for others to  
evaluate for themselves.

 
Arlo:
That "we were scammed"? I think the only thing that serves is  catering to the
ego of the scammer.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
The event happened.
It has to be dealt with.
Anthony chose to erase it from his site and i would not deny him the right  
to run his site the way he sees fit.
I feel he made a poor choice and i am free to express this  opinion.
I support my opinion by appealing a true presentation of events is  better 
than untrue presentation of events.

Arlo:
You want DMB and Ant and Horse and all who were gullible enough to  fall for
these shennanigans to flog themselves publically?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I don't want any such thing.
 
Arlo:
I mean, that's what it seems
like it boils down to.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
It boils down to openness and honesty in one's dealings with events as one  
encounters them Arlo.
A man or woman who tells it like it is will never be short of respect and  
admiration.
That's why so few politicians gain respect - they lack intellectual  
integrity.
 
Arlo:
What other purpose could there be for demanding they
make reference to  the fact that they were scammed?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Please choose you language with more care Arlo?
No one is making demands.
There may be an interesting philosophical topic here regarding a notion  that 
Quality makes demands, but that is another  thread.

<snip>

[Mark]
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]
Then  what do the syllables do? What value do they add to the MOQ?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
You've lapsed into nonsense now. This is gibberish.

[Mark]
They  miss the truth Arlo. If truth has no value in this forum i think it's 
all
the  worse for it.

[Arlo]
Okay, the truth is that someone conned Ant and  others who sought to bring
together discussion on the MOQ. Why is that truth  valuable?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
The truth is it happened. That fact cannot be changed.
References to it can, and have been changed.
Other site owners have been asked to employ the same policy.
Anthony's embarrassment is secondary to these facts.
 
Arlo:
To show how Ant is
a buffoon?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Arlo, if Anthony has shown himself to be a buffoon with regard to the hoax  
it happened the day the hoax was revealed.
IMHO, it actually makes Anthony look worse when he tries to pretend it did  
not happen.
I have nothing to do with the above Arlo - they have happened  regardless.
 
Arlo:
That the MOQ is a cult?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Adhering to personalities forms the basis for cults. If you fail to present  
sound intellectual arguments and simply rally to a personality because that  
personality has made a buffoon of itself, you may be actually reinforcing a 
cult  of personality rather than intellectual truth.
Think about it.
 
Arlo:
Are these the "intellectual truths" that are
being suppressed?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Truth itself is an intellectual pattern.

[Mark]
It is a  matter of historical truth the paper was delivered at the  
conference.

[Arlo]
If I walked into a conference on Nietzsche and  started screaming how he is 
the
devil, you would likely not find reference to  it in the conference archives,
despite it being a "historical truth". What is  documented, what SHOULD be
documented, are relevant, important and meaningul  activities. A hoax hardly
qualifies.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I am beginning to wonder how far intelligent people like yourself are  
prepared to go with this?
Earlier on in this thread you began Arlo your approach was measured and  
assured. As it has progressed you have multiplied the questions and become  
increasingly incoherent. Now we have entered the realms of considering  hypothetical 
events which don't parallel real events.
The hoax WAS included in a historical reference and further, it was  praised. 
These events have been erased from the historical reference, and have  been 
requested to be removed from sites not run by those making the request, an  
activity you earlier felt was close to being unacceptable depending on whether  
it was a request or a demand.

Arlo:
I do keep asking myself, were I a "newbie", and I've just read  ZMM/Lila, and 
I
stumbled on Ant's site seeking more information, what exactly  do I MISS by
having the hoax omitted? If you say "knowing it happened", I ask  "why is that
important? why am I better off knowing Ant was hoaxed than not?"  Also, if I
find later G/S/R's site on the hoax, I can make up my own mind  about its
merits, and whatever claim about the MOQ he intended to make.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
The newbie in question would find a detailed account of a conference.
The newbie would later discover the account was doctored.
The newbie would make his/her own mind up concerning the doctoring, but  that 
there had been doctoring would not be in doubt.
If the newbie thought, 'This guy is ashamed to admit he showed his ass and  
made things worse by trying to hide it' then that's an impression which may be  
held by millions as time moves on.
However, if the conference was correct in detail no one would make such  
assumptions would they?
It's going to be widely known anyway so which is worse:
1. Having people know you fell for a hoax and admitted it, or,
2. Knowing you fell for a hoax and tried to keep it quiet.
Love,
Mark