[MD] Decision

[Mary]

Hi X acto,

You left out the best part.  For your edification, here is what you said
which prompted my comments again...

> [X acto]
> One side justifys their beliefs by rejecting half of Pirsigs work
> 
> the other justifys their beliefs by the inclusion,and consistentcy of 
> all of Pirsigs work.
> 
> They are able to give explanations for why they value this 
> interpretation
> 
> while the other can not give an explanation outside the interpretive 
> factor.
> 
> one is narrow and exclusive the other broad and inclusive.
> 
> one side is a better explanation than the other.
> 
> To begin the dialog, lets ask.
> 

[Mary replies]

A dialog is a conversation undertaken with some level of mutual respect.
Perhaps someone else can engage with you, but I'm not comfortable that this
is a dialog.

> 
> Ron:
> My mistake.
> 

[Mary replies]

Your mistake indeed.  If you would care to defend your subjective assertions
I would be willing to address them.  As it is, you've submitted nothing to
advance the DIALOG.  I'm not impressed by insults.  If you are attempting to
'defend an interpretation of Pirsig', you will need to supply some
substance.  Can you do that?

Best,
Mary