[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Surely you must know how to read. Again I suggest you read Lila. All
> your
> questions about DQ are answered in that book.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Nice try.
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> YOU keep denigrating chance. YOU keep saying "it's not chance, it's DQ".
> What
> are the DISTINCTIONS?
> 
> Or, if you prefer, kindly point out ONE passage in LILA you feel
> illustrates a
> distinction between "chance" and "DQ".
> 
> Just one.
> 
> Does your intellectual dishonesty really not make you ashamed? I mean,
> certainly even you are capable of seeing that you are doing nothing but
> embarrassing yourself here.
> 
> But no matter. I know you are too much a coward to have this
> conversation.
> What's a shame is that you don't stop to ask yourself why you can't
> provide a
> single, solitary distinction. You can "boo hoo" here again "ad hominems",
> it
> matters not. You _want_ Qualigod, but you lack the balls to just be
> honest
> about it. You want "intent", but lack the brass to say it outright (and
> believe
> me, I understand why!). Sad, really.
> 
> I'm reminded of Pirsig's talk in ZMM about the chairman, and if he really
> were
> interested in truth... but I'd wager that's just another opportunity for
> you to
> cry your "ad hominem" nonsense again.
> 
> I'll just leave you with this. Ask yourself, why are you incapable or
> unwilling
> to offer even ONE distinction between "chance" and "DQ'? I'm sure we all
> know
> why, but maybe you should try just being honest with yourself.

Another round of mean-spirited personal attacks. Obviously you have no 
shame. Even more obvious, you haven't read Lila. And you talk about 
honesty. But hypocrisy is no stranger to you. You revel in it.