[MD] Horse's Ruling

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt, Craig,  All.

14 Aug. you had written to 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?.

Thanks Platt, this put things in the right perspective,  I feel a bit sorry 
for Horse being caught with his pants down and his liberal attitude so 
badly tainted. Lots of weird interpretations - some directly undermining 
the MOQ - have been  forwarded, but the one so obviously Phaedrus' 
original idea is tried suppressed. Steve's complaint of hijacking his 
thread is hilarious, what thread keeps its original content for more than 
a day? Anyway, the SOL refuses to go away for the obvious reason 
that it IS the idea that the MOQ is founded on and all threads on the 
MOQ will end there.Thanks also to Craig for his sound suggestion of 
letting the two interpretations compete. I don't quite know what the 
orthodox interpretation is except "don't mention the SOL" and/or 
"Pirsig has said" and very little of what the MOQ says, because once 
you start applying it the S/O intellect pops up like a jack-in-the-box.  

Bodvar













> 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,

> >
> > Just wondering.
> > Platt
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
>