[MD] Nest of Vipers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[Mark]
I think i can see the next step: dmb and Arlo send Mark to the  Wendy house 
while
they sit and have a nice cosy cuzzy up to  Anthony.

[Arlo]
Talk about appeals to hysteria.
 
Mark 18-11-06: Hello Arlo,
You signed off your last post, 'Nice talking to you Mark.'
Sounded a bit like a full stop or period. But i see you've decided to  
continue, which is good.
 
Arlo:
Mark, when in one post you say I am speaking
gibberish, imply that my  position is determined by an adherence to a cult of
personality, and that I  am becoming incoherent, leaves me to believe it is a
waste of my time to  argue this further with you. And now, your recent 
statement
above belies even  so much more.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I haven't seen much argument yet. I have seen quite a bit of rhetorical  
questioning.
I've also seen you forget what you asked me about and then use my responses  
as the basis for a different question, which is unfair and meaningless.
You have decided to rectify this situation somewhat by listing a series of  
propositions as follows:

Arlo:
1.) That "hoax" can be found, it is not censored.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I have not suggested it cannot be found, censored or  otherwise.
It can't be found on robertpirsig.org or moq.org
 
Arlo:
2.) Inclusion of it does nothing to advance the MOQ.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
As an example of honest dealing it sets an example the moq may support  as 
patterns of intellectual value.
 
Arlo:
3.) Including it "just because it happened" is an empty  demand.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I have not demanded anything.
What i have questioned is the moral status of removing an element from a  
presentation of factual events simply because it is embarrassing for some  
individuals.
 
Arlo:
4.) All this speaks more to social and professional jealousy and  emotional
disdain for the academy.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
No, it questions the moral status of removing an element from a  presentation 
of factual events simply because it is embarrassing for some  individuals.
Would you explain what you mean by, 'emotional disdain for the academy'  
please?

Arlo:
If you could convince me of one good reason, besides "its a  historical fact 
it
happened", of why it would be of intellectual value to  include it, I too 
would
ask Ant to consider it.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
How about being honest? Is that not good enough for you Arlo?
 
Arlo:
But all I can see, all any one your posts have
indicated, is a desire to  see Ant bear social ridicule.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Anthony's ridicule, social, intellectual or otherwise, is within his  ability 
to determine proportionate to his talents.
I did not advise him to do the things he's done.
I don't hold his hand do i?
That's that for a start.
Now, if you are suggesting i am free to ask questions iff they are in no  
sense embarrassing, then you have made a good start down the road to  supporting 
personality cult status.
 
Arlo:
There is simply no
other reason it is SO important for a hoax, which is  bereft of intellectual
quality, to be mentioned on his site, a hoax that was  orchastrated in a
deliberate attempt to ridicule, socially, a group of  people.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
That's a remarkable statement you have just presented Arlo. Quite  remarkable.
Here's why:
1. Arlo: 'a hoax, which is bereft of intellectual quality'
2. McWatt: '...considering... ...the high quality of your paper...'
3. Arlo: '...deliberate attempt to ridicule, socially...'
I don't think so Arlo - what the hoax attempted, and succeeded in, was  
intellectual ridicule, if anything.
The social stuff comes later.

[Mark]
May i remind you that my response to this statement of yours  indicates a tot
al
lack of personal vilification.

[Arlo]
Then what  DOES it contain? You've told me several times what it is not, and
Platt has  indicated he liked the paper, so give me a summary. Tell me what 
this
paper  DOES hold.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I shall hand you over to Dr. Anthony McWatt:
'The paper makes a good argument that the MOQ perceives the world
in a  better way than any framework that we have had previously.'
 
Arlo:
As near as I can figure, its an amateurish attempt to recreate
Alan  Sokal's mid-90s humanities journal hoax, an attempt to gain social 
capital
by  social denigration rather than intellectual construction  (or
deconstruction).
 
Mark 18-11-06:
Perhaps so, but Anthony and dmb disagree with you:
'The paper makes a good argument that the MOQ perceives the world
in a  better way than any framework that we have had previously.' (McWatt)
'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.' (McWatt)
'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.' (Buchanan)

[Mark]
Arlo, Anthony is not the moq. The moq didn't, 'get  scammed.'

[Arlo]
So what was the intent of the paper? To ridicule Ant,  or to ridicule the 
MOQ? Or
both?
 
Mark 18-11-06:
You introduced the notion of ridicule Arlo.
I don't know if the paper was intended to ridicule?
I suspect the paper attempted to explore the ability of a conference  full of 
people interested in the moq to detect  crap.

[Mark]
'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom,  democracy and  trial by
jury.'

[Arlo]
This is a noble appeal,  but it says nothing to the current debate.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
It's not a noble appeal it's written by Anthony McWatt in his PhD thesis as  
a description of intellectual values, p. 95
I see you have removed the reference for some mysterious reason.
If this debate hopes to be an intellectual one, then it will adhere to  
intellectual patterns won't it?
My opinion of you Arlo is in free fall if you are serious when you tell me  
intellectual patterns have nothing to do with this debate.
 
Arlo:
Many things
happened at the MOQ Conference, I'm sure, that are not on  the website. 
"Truth,
justice and freedom" are not suffering because of it.  And, as I've said, the
open dialogic nature of the Internate means that a  reasonable conclusion is
that the information will be found.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
This is irrelevant Arlo.
Only one event has been removed and that is the one under  discussion.

[Mark]
In keeping with the hysterical tone language has  become hyperbolic.

[Arlo]
If you seriously want to go one discussing  this with me, Mark, you'll have to
give this medicine to yourself.
 
Mark 18-11-06:
I've stated a number of facts simply and concisely. I've responded straight  
to the point. I've been careful to indicate where i feel the moq has something 
 to say upon the matter in hand.
You, on the other hand, titled this post, 'Nest of Vipers' for pity's  sake.
Enough said.
Love,
Mark