[MD] Missing the Point

[Heather Perella]

gav,


     [SA earlier]
> >      Uh?  Missing the point, or the point you
> point
> > at?  MOQ primer?  I'm really pushing you to answer
> > and
> > thus, pull us into the direction you notice and
> > seemingly sparked in your beginning of this
> thread.


     [gav] 
> i don't quite get what you are after here

     I didn't quite get what you, also, are/were
after, as I said, "Uh?"


     [gav]
> i will offer up some kind of response anyway.
> i was a bit frustrated

     Yes, that's why I said, "Uh?" as well.  You were
saying something, and frustration, yes, that's what it
was, I see.

     [gav]
> with discuss because it seemed
> we were going over the same ground all the
> time....

     Static quality

     [gav]
> but....it is called 'discuss' for i reason i
> suppose. as arlo and others pointed out there should
> be a lot of latitude in the discuss forum.

      Since you state, "arlo and others pointed out
there should be... latitude..." what in particular or
what point is missing or are you missing?  You seem to
be inferring that amidst this whole range of issues
there is a point.  What point are you leaning towards?
 

     [gav]
>  so.....i thought, and have been ruminating on for a
> week or two, that using moq-focus for a more, well,
> focussed discussion might be the way to go. discuss
> stays very dynamic (if at times a little too
> 'dynamic'for my liking), and focus concentrates on
producing
> a collective body of work that fleshes out and
applies
> the MOQ

     I haven't visited the MOQ-focus.  Maybe I need to
go into that forum, too.  Many issues are raised here,
MoQ-discuss, and there are always certain issues, even
though raised, get ignored, lost in the wind, and
discarded with no actual discussion that tries to
bounce back and forth an evolution or creativity. 
This occurs, don't get me wrong, but differences are
focused upon here rather than gathering momentum. 
Arguments/contrast, not cooperation, even amidst
differences is the lay of the land.

> and as such operates as a primer for those
> keen to get into moq-discuss.

     This is where I wasn't sure what you meant.  Many
of the discussions have been occurring, disappearing,
and then to reappear again.  Arlo v. Platt, Ham's
inconsistencies, Ian's quick wit, Marsha's beautiful
art, dmbs' mystical v. theism, Dan's very
down-to-earth approach, Khaled's watchful eye on the
Middle East, Case's science, etc....   (Did I get
everybody right?  Sorry if I didn't.)  So I ask, what
do you need primed for getting into the moq-discuss? 
What might be missing that being primed would help
generate?  

     [gav]
> idea is that it should help prevent a lot of the
rehashings and 
> impasses that discuss is notorious for. what do you
think?

     Rehashings and impasses, from my experience and
actual quotes from some at times is that sometimes
people in this discuss-forum don't sit back and absorb
what others have to say.  They don't mull it around
and spit something out that may reflect that the
reader chewed upon, looked at every angle, and
contemplated some of the posts others have typed. 
Whether they agree or not with others postings, the
rehashings and impasses would sprout from
no-collective effort.  Even if one is being an
individual, those individuals are not noticing what
others are saying, and they move right on by, foraging
for what preconceived ideas they may have and want. 
Intentions come across a lot, personal agendas. 
People have a way about them that is as an old person,
meaning they are stuck in their ways.  Some may, at
times, sit-back, and even being an individual, may try
to show they know where the other person is coming
from, where they themselves are, and then they try to
fill in any gaps or show contrasts to their individual
ways.  Some reflect upon themselves, and have
introspection, others can't see where the heck the
other person is coming from, and the discussion is
dropped.  The recent Ham and Mark discussion was very
good in one way.  I thought it showed a contrast of
ideas that tried, though it didn't at times, to show
how their viewpoint differs from the others.  This is
much different than saying that Ham tried to see the
MoQ from Mark's perspective, since at times Mark was
very clear-cut and explicit on what he meant and Ham
seemed to not get it due to holding to his own
dogma/box.  He was afraid, one might say, to fit on
Mark's box for a bit and see what it was like.  If he
found out he didn't like it, then he could always
throw Mark's box out.  Ham has the hardest time
expressing any effort to view the world from another
person's eyes, he doesn't even come close, but that's
his way, his proprietary self's way of living.  Mark
was able to use Ham's terminology, go into Ham's
thesis, try it on, and he left it.  What did happen
was a discussion.  It ended up turning sour, but each
point was discussed back and forth by Ham and Mark. 
Many times, points are not bounced back and forth in
this discussionary way in this forum.  Topics are
raised for others to discuss, but lack of attention,
lack of interest, and lack of understanding might be
the lay of the land here.  Also, topics are raised,
discussions occur, but some of the topics are covered
in the discussion and other topics in the discussion
are by-passed seemingly unimportant.  I have been
bringing up the rear in this current rant and rave
discussion that has thrown out over 80 posts in the
last three days or so.  I have noticed some points,
some very interesting points have been raised and no
response has been given.  The post may be addressed to
specific people, and they may or may not respond, and
if they do respond they will only cover in their post
what they want to talk about and dismiss some of the
points raised.  I have some topics in mind brought up
by Jos and Platt that I have saved maybe, and will
probably might end up responding to them, if I can
find them.  They were points though hinted to by
others, seemed to have gotten lost in the shuffle. 
This is the lay of the land, and as not much
cooperation occurs, then not much contemplation or a
close-look.  More-like far-away glances at what those
birds might be flying far away near the horizon. 
Quick glances that try to identify what they barely
are able to see.  


I don't know,
SA       

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com