[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ian glendinning]

OK Ant, Thanks. You have adressed my point.

Let's call it a misunderstading shall we, and just bear it in mind as
the compilation and editing proceeds.

As for the references to DMB, I don't know how explicit I have to be.

"David was the highlight of the 2005 conference, his paper by far the
best read in itself, and the connection with Pirsig himself the most
apparent spiritually to all who witnessed it and have communicated
with the two of them since, etc." I've said it all repeatedly ...
publicly in several times and places ... and always sincerely. I'm his
biggest fan. Do I have to tattoo it on my forehead ?

I still commend people to follow-up on Arlo's points in this thread.

Ian

On 10/9/06, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>