[MD] Nest of Diapers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

dmb said:
Again, I think Mark's accusations are unfounded and  slanderous.

Mark asked dmb:
What accusations are these  precisely?

dmb says:
You've got to be kidding. Apparently there was a  big sale down at the 
audacity store.

Fortunately, I didn't have to  look very far for substantiation. There was a 
version of your slanderous  accusation in the same post, just a few lines 
below your denial of the same.  Of course, this is just one example of your 
main theme...

Mark  concluded his post:
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.
 
Mark 18-11-06: Hello dmb,
This is not slanderous.
1 is a fact.

dmb says:
Here you have opposed Ant's choice with  "the truth". You are, in effect, 
calling Ant a liar.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
No. I have presented facts.
Anthony determined those facts.
That Anthony did so in adherence to truth is a question some may wish to  
debate.
 
dmb:
As with the last time you pretended not to understand 
the nature of  your own actions, you have repeatedly implied that excluding 
any reference  to the hoax from his site constitutes some kind of deception.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
It isn't, 'some kind of deception' it very much actually is  deception.
 
dmb:
"Why hide it?", you asked. Not only does that imply dishonesty on  Ant's 
part, its also a really stupid question.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I have come to understand there are a very great number of things you feel  
to be stupid dmb, but this does not make them so.
Dismissing anything or anyone as stupid is easy; supporting your position  
with clear argument is another matter.
 
dmb:
The question is, why would he 
include a intentionally hurtful piece of  crap on his site?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
It wasn't hurtful when you regarded it to be:
 
'...amazing, brilliant and original.'
Perhaps if it is made available others may derive the  same intellectual 
stimulation from it?

 
dmb:
It would be 
foolish and pointless to put it there.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
It wasn't foolish or pointless to agree to have it presented at the 2005  
Liverpool moq conference:
'However, considering the circumstances that prevent you visiting and the  
high quality of your paper, I’ll make an exception in this case even if I have  
to read out the paper myself." Anthony McWatt
 
dmb:
Your accusations are not unlike the 
hoax; intentionally hurtful  nonsense.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I haven't made any accusations.
I've presented facts.
'The paper makes a good argument that the MOQ perceives the world
in a  better way than any framework that we have had previously.' Dr. Anthony 
 McWatt
Later, the same paper is removed rom robertpirsig.org
Note: Anthony is not here telling us why.
Instead, he is reading this and choosing to say nothing.

dmb:
And your moral posturing only adds hypocrisy to the slime.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
So how would you like to proceed: Whip up emotional hysteria on the forum  
and have me hounded out, or engage in something resembling intellectual  debate?
Love,
Mark