[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Michael]
We may not agree on all things, Arlo, but lets keep in mind we are 
probably not that far apart when it comes right down to it. Yes?

[Arlo]
I doubt we are. Hell, I doubt most people are. (One of the most 
pernicious aspects of ideological doctrine has been its "us versus 
them" mentality that creates the illusion that the side of Rightness 
(always, conveniently, "us") is wholly polar to the side of Wrongness 
(always, conveniently, "them"). Listen to the muck that permeates 
political punditry and it takes less than a few minutes before you 
hear the "Righteous Us versus Evil Them" template. Successful 
politicos have learned that their success is intimately tied to the 
"War" they can conjure up with some boogeyman-other. Indeed, one 
could say those seeking power in any venue have learned to play this 
"nightmare game" (a term based on the BBC documentary "The Power of 
Nightmare"), from political power to social power of any form.

At any rate, my little soapbox rant above aside, yes I think its 
always important to forground the fact that if you strip aside the 
"hot button" issues, we have more in common that not. What I kind of 
alluded to in my last post is that one of the hallmarks of a forum 
like this is that "agreement" is often silent, people contribute MORE 
based on stronger disagreement with a post. Every now and again 
you'll see a post eloquent and precise in its capturing of some form 
of Quality, and maybe you'll see a post or two of appreciation, but 
its the posts that generate disagreement that end up a million 
exchanges long with a dozen contributors chiming in. That's not 
unique to MOQ Discuss, that's part of the genre of discussion forums 
in general. And in general, I'd say, the civility and 
good-manneredness of this list are striking (at least compared to 
other lists I've engaged in over the years), a testament to Horse to be sure.

So, a VW Microbus, eh? Hippie...

:-)