[MD] the empire

[Ham Priday]

Woods Woods --

> Good post Arlo.  Now I wonder if Ham will yet again,
> NOT respond to yours or my post.  I'm still waiting for Ham
> to respond to his position on people being able to freely
> think.  He said he was against this.  He said philosophy
> and thus reality ought to not have differing opinions.  That's
> what he said, and when I pointed this out and asked, yes asked,
> for further explanation he never responded to this request.

Now that you have complimented Arlo on his masterfully fabricated 
reinvention of my 10/28 post, you wonder why I don't respond to either of 
you.  Would YOU respond to people who take delight in slandering and 
misrepresenting your belief system?  What possible benefit would it serve, 
other than encouraging more of the same?   I make it a policy to respond 
only to statements or questions directed specifically to me, unless it is a 
topic that piques my interest or an issue in which I can make a positive 
contribution.

You say you are "waiting for Ham to respond to his position on people being 
able to freely think."  Now, what position do you suppose a free-thinking 
person who has been preaching "individual freedom" for years, and has even 
criticized Pirsig for failing to acknowledge man as the "free agent" of 
value, would take?   Your accusation is preposterous.  Kindly point me to a 
single sentence posted by me which stated, or implied, that I was against 
people thinking for themselves or having "different opinions" about reality. 
(I don't accept responsibility for what others may construe or "paraphrase" 
from my statements, and I can only assume that this is such a case.)

Regards,
Ham