[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[Ant McWatt]

Ian Glendinning stated October 8th:

>ANT / DMB, I’m not going to address your “crankier” rhetoric directly here,

Ant McWatt comments:

:-)


>they are about personal motivations and qualifications ... we
>can discuss further if you see issues there. I’ll address the points
>here. I’d be pleased if you could too.

Ant McWatt comments:

I don’t know if this type of conversation is particular productive but 
Robert Pirsig has made it known for a while that David Buchanan comes closer 
than most people here in understanding his work.  I know some correspondents 
are occasionally put off by David’s “not suffering fools gladly” attitude 
but the fact remains there is a substantial amount of useful insights into 
the MOQ throughout the posts of David’s in the MOQ Discuss archives.  This 
is why I suggested that David be given a place on the editorial team for the 
Guidebook to LILA if he so chooses.

>Ant - academia / qualifications / quality ? I think there is a
>separate thread going on these with Dan and Gav. You get the respect
>you deserve Ant. BUT that just doesn’t translate to final editorial
>rights on anything published as “MOQ”. Sorry, but that is my point, to
>de-personalise the editorial question. The point I keep asking you to
>address. Your claiming those rights risks undermining that respect.

Ant McWatt comments:

Ian, in my last e-mail to you, when I stated “I would also happy to read 
everything through for final editorial say” for the Guidebook to LILA, I was 
making the point that (as a PhD in the MOQ) I’d prepared to put in the hard 
work and time to read through and comment on the material produced for the 
Guidebook if the editorial team in charge of it so wished.

Sorry if that was unclear.

Best wishes,

Anthony



.

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters