[MD] Social level for humans only

[Frank Booth]

(a) If a problem comes along: You must whip it.

(b) If the cream sets out too long: You must whip it.

(c) If something is going wrong: You must whip it.

----

That was good thinking on your part.




________________________________
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 11:17:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Social level for humans only


Krimel,  

Soft spot for the underdog?  Between you and Dave Thomas, it is Mr. 
Pirsig who seems the underdog, and I gladly whip the both of you if 
you were before me.  


Marsha



On Aug 21, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Krimel wrote:

> Krimel said:
> I have never understood metaphysics to be an excuse for avoiding ideas.
> 
> dmb says:
> I know. What you've always understood is snarkiness as an excuse for
> avoiding metaphysical ideas. I don't know where you got the impression that
> rudeness could serve as a substitute for making an intelligent point but you
> have definitely been misled. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Coming from someone who has boasted about the number of Moqers of a
> Christian persuasion whom you have personally chased away from this forum;
> this is ironic indeed. Your rudeness and snarkiness on this forum are the
> stuff of legend. Do you seriously expect to garner sympathy by whining that
> someone has done unto you what you have consistently done unto others?
> 
> What you are taking as "snarkiness" and rudeness might also be interpreted
> at frustration at your lack of engagement with the issues raised. In fact I
> think you would be hard pressed to find an example of one of my posts that
> relied exclusively on the snarky. Take the example cited by Platt as reason
> for having me censured: 
> 
> "Rather than engage the issues raised he slaps on the label SOM and "Presto"
> no need to read, no need to engage the issue, time to just sit back and feel
> self-righteous."
> 
> That rude comment was preceded by another:
> 
> "It is hard to see how anyone interested in the idea of consciousness could
> ignore or dismiss Chalmers but for dmb it's not a problem."
> 
> The snarkiness is clearly a mark of frustration at this tactic of yours. The
> rudeness is an admittedly bad rhetorical move aimed at getting you to stop
> it.  
> 
> Not that the rudeness had the intended effect but now after reading a wiki
> you think Chalmers "might" be interesting. The point is that your first
> inclination is to ignore what the person says based on your assumptions
> about their assumptions. Then you come back after a few days or months or
> even years and cite the very things you previously denounced. After years of
> this kind of twisting and evasion, snarkiness comes naturally.
> 
> It isn't just your lack of breath and depth that is offensive; it is the
> pride you take in being narrow and shallow.
> 
> [dmb]
> Nobody is buying it, Krimel. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> I might have agreed with you on this at various times but now I am not so
> sure. Even Marsha who has a contrarian soft spot for the underdog hasn't
> been moved by your whining. Dave Thomas has been voicing many of the same
> issues I have in slightly less snarky terms. Engage those issues. I'd love
> to see it. I'll happily stay out if you find my comment make you
> uncomfortable.
> 
> [dmb]
> And so here is the only response you deserve.
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> [Krimel]
> At last something different. I thank you for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 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



___


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