[MD] re, fellow european-Bodvar

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Point proved. Quotes from Pirsig to substantiate claims? None. Personal 
attacks. Repeated. 

On 14 Apr 2010 at 15:49, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Platt]
> No surprise here. The usual personal attack.
> 
> [Arlo
> "Personal attack"? Too funny!!
> 
> Let's see if we can find this...
> 
> [Arlo's first paragraph]
> Lest someone get the wrong impression, Pirsig did NOT, as your post 
> implies, champion ignorance. Indeed, Pirsig has given his full 
> support to both Ant McWatt and DMB; both working to bring the MOQ 
> into the Academy. Anyone wishing to purchase the Pirsig DVD's (from 
> Ant McWatt's site) will see first hand the endorsements Pirsig gives 
> to these academics. Your accusation that they are involved in 
> "philosopholoy" is ridiculous.
> 
> [Arlo adds]
> No "personal attack" there. But the first of my two substantive 
> points (which you've evaded - make a note of this).
> 
> Let's go on...
> 
> [Arlo's second paragraph]
> Bo exemplifies consistency in his determination to promote his own 
> interpretation of the MOQ, which is fine and commendable. But, as 
> Horse pointed out, it is important for newcomers to know that Pirsig 
> himself denies outright Bo's SOL interpretation. When Bo says "no one 
> is talking about Pirsig's ideas", what he should say is "no one talks 
> about my personal revision of Pirsig's ideas", which is fine and 
> probably mostly true.
> 
> [Arlo adds]
> Still no "personal attack", but the second substantive point (which 
> you've evaded - make a note of this too).
> 
> Let's go on...
> 
> [Arlo's third paragraph]
> It's no surprise to anyone who has been around for a while, but its 
> worth pointing out to the newcomers that there is a very pronounced 
> anti-intellectual sentiment here, mostly from you. It is no surprise 
> even the simplest of posts you submit almost HAVE to contain some 
> inane right-wing, anti-intellectual jab at "statists", "leftists", 
> "the media" and those evil "perfessers" in the "commie academy" 
> (basically Limbaugh's Boogeymen list).
> 
> [Arlo adds]
> I suppose this is what you're whining about, but its hardly a 
> "personal attack". Anyone can at any time go back and look at the 
> archives and see that your posts always contain some inane right-wing 
> nonsense, usually tirades about whatever the boogeyman du jour of 
> talk-radio is. That's not a personal attack, that's just observation. 
> Indeed, since you're original post was nothing but an 
> anti-intellectual condemnation of "academics" (which I've answered in 
> my first substantive point), this is just providing context.
> 
> Let's go on...
> 
> [Arlo's fourth/final paragraph]
> I don't know "what Pirsig hoped for", but again since those he 
> chooses to interact directly with are your "evil academics", I'd have 
> to say it would seem as if Pirsig endorses more the work being done 
> by the likes of Ant and DMB then the sophomoric, anti-intellectual 
> "random thoughts" others post here.
> 
> [Arlo adds]
> No personal attacks here. Just the supported observation that while 
> none of us can know for sure if the list is "what Pirsig hoped for", 
> we can look at who and how Pirsig has supported/endorsed over the 
> years, and it's been the two biggest academics among us; Ant and DMB. 
> Given that, I'd say that "academic talk" on the list is hardly 
> something Pirsig would fret.
> 
> If you want to claim that my alluding to your "random thoughts" being 
> sophomoric and anti-intellectual is a "personal attack", well then 
> boo hoo. I'm happy to point this out in detail if you wish.