[MD] Horse's Ruling

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Horse,
No I don't. But, that's OK. No one is obligated to answer anybody. But, this if 
the first time someone has asked to be shielded from a dissenting view. I find 
that unreasonable for a discussion group.   

Platt
P.S. In accordance with the new ruling, I changed the subject of the thread.

On 14 Aug 2010 at 21:09, Horse wrote:

  You know exactly what I'm talking about Platt, we've been over this 
before and I'm not about to get embroiled in another pointless 
discussion about it.
As we agreed some time ago I have been polite and reasonable and I 
expect the same from others.

Horse

On 14/08/2010 21:03, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Horse,
> If not being "the least bit interested" in how something "relates to any aspect
> of the MOQ"  is the new criteria for what can and cannot be said in adding a
> comment to a thread, then I presume you'll want to know when I and others find
> a comment of no interest so you can ask the writer to change the subject
> heading. Right? Or does the new rule just apply to SOM as the intellectual
> level and not to other criticisms of Pirsig's positions, like the social level
> not being limited to humans and the absurdity of DQ being instrumental in
> evolution?.
>
> Just wondering.
> Platt