[MD] Decision

[Ian Glendinning]

Sorry John, I have to disagree further ... and right now I'm just
defending Horse on a very simple matter of moderator principle ...

You said .... "Even tho Bo hasn't really modified his stance in years,
there's hope that he can be convinced. Perhaps not directly, but
indirectly by convincing [others]. And if we can't convince those
[...], then what?"

This is not about tenure, or arguments or convincing Bo and others.
They can hold any views they like for as long as they like and express
them on this open discussion forum. I have no problem with there being
orthodox / mainstream interpretations and minority views, and I have
no preconceptions about which are the more dynamic.

What they cannot do is lie or argue dishonestly, ... consistently,
determinedly dishonest ... not just for rhetorical effect.

Dan and Magnus have pointed this out clearly too. What I can't hack is
the people ... (inc Matt, whose opinion I also respect, that's why I
use him as the example here) ... say they've got that point, yet
continue to argue on other points .... muddy waters and the straw men
featuring platteral shift.

Since when was moderation a democracy anyway.
What chance does Horse have ?

If I am to be accused of riding the high horse to point out that
honesty is a good idea to defend, then so be it. Sorry Steve.
Ian
(PS Marsha is away on a vacation break I believe.)