[MD] to dmb

[MarshaV]

Mark,

No, I guess not, but I'm a very good cook and can make a 
delicious paella.   ;-)   


Marsha   


On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:29 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> Religious Zealot?  Here is the self test.  If you answer yes to two
> questions, you are slightly insecure; 4, you need help; 6, you are a
> religious zealot; 8, you are living in a box; All of them, you are a
> politician.
> 
> 1)Have you been throwing books at people lately to show that you are
> "oh so right" and everybody else is damn wrong?
> 
> 2) Do you besmirch everybody who doesn't have your view?
> 
> 3) Do you keep presenting the same quotes time and time again, rigorously?
> 
> 4) Do you respond by telling others that they are idiots?
> 
> 5) Are you unable to deal with other people's opinions?
> 
> 6) Do you say it is true because the preacher said it was?
> 
> 7) Are you praying or trying to find favor with your maker?
> 
> 8) Are you concerned with others blaspheming your maker?
> 
> 9) Do you claim to be a favored child?
> 
> 10) Are you stuck in Dogma?
> 
> :-)
> Mark
> 
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> HI Mark,
>> 
>> Am I sounding like a religious zealot?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:02 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:32 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>  There is a relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism, and I do not
>>> think my pursuing it poses any threat to the MoQ.  As RMP has clearly
>>> stated, the MoQ is not confined within any one philosophic tradition.
>>> The last paragraph in your post seems to be unreasonable and
>>> exaggerated name-calling because I will not follow your lead.  Please
>>> do not take it personally.  It may be that there is a good
>>> relationship between Contemporary Pragmatism/Radical Empiricism and
>>> the MoQ, and between Buddhist philosophy and the MoQ, with something
>>> to be gained from both approaches.
>>>> 
>>> [Mark]
>>> In the first book about Quality, Buddhism was in the title.  You have
>>> every reason to consider Buddhism in terms of MOQ, that was the intent
>>> of the first book.  I did not realize there was any dispute about
>>> whether Buddhism was related.  Who would even suggest such a thing?
>>> 
>>> There are some who place quotes down instead of explanations.  However
>>> quotes must be viewed in the context of the entire book, and do not
>>> stand on their own.  It is quite possible that the context provides
>>> the exact opposite of what is attempted to be supported.  I can find a
>>> sentence in ZMM to support any contention I want.  This does not
>>> provide any support whatsoever, it is bordering on Dogmatic.  Throwing
>>> bibles is not a philosophical approach, it is a religious one.  If it
>>> wasn't for philosophy, I am sure a lot of those posting would be
>>> staunch religious Zealots.  You can find any quote you want in the
>>> bible also.  Does this mean that the approach is right?  Just because
>>> Moses said something does not prove anything.  I don't know why some
>>> just march in step, it is somewhat disappointing.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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


 
___