[MD] Re Arlo

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Arlo fancies anyone who challenges his contradictions (which he doesn't want to
repeat) to be anti-intellectual, thereby pinning a rose on himself. The
arrogance never ends.  

[Arlo]
A dishonest trifecta! Are you trying for a talk-radio gold medal?

Let's recall this started with the claim that Arlo thinks Pirsig is too
"pigheaded" to change his mind.

That was nonsense. Dishonesty 1.

Then you came back with "Arlo says Pirsig could change his mind except about
one of his opinions."

More nonsense. Dishonesty 2.

Now you move towards the above nonsense. Dishonesty 3.

All in the span of a day.

[Arlo had quoted Bo as saying]
As usual, there's no mention of other supporters of Bo's position. The fear
he's right is palpable.

[Platt]
Bo? Bo said that? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.  Like putting something I
didn't say in quotes  The hypocrisy never stops.

[Arlo]
You are right. Unlike you, I am not afraid to admit a mistake. The above quote
was YOU, not Bo. The mistype was a simple mistake, but I apologize for the
error.

[Arlo's reply, however, stands]
Just more nonsense. Why would I "fear" Bo is right? As I said to Adrie, and is
obvious to all, this sort of "talk-radio" bombast is the only recourse to those
arguing "for" Bo. His ideas are intellectually worthless, and so you all offer
nothing but emotionally-driven distortions and dishonesty.

[Platt]
Why? Because it challenges your self-assigned eminence as a fount of intellect.

[Arlo]
Such idiocy! Dishonesty 4!

If anything, to be at least plausibly correct, you should say it "challenges
Pirsig's eminence as a fount of intellect", since Bo's disagreement is not with
me, it is with Pirsig.

But this is just more piss-poor rhetoric. Of course, I expect nothing but this
from the talk-radio crowd. You've proven loooong ago that this kind of
dishonest rhetoric is really all you have to offer.

[Platt]
Arlo is a poster boy for academic hypocrisy, praising diversity of ideas on one
hand and demonizing those who challenge approved ways of thinking on the other. 

[Arlo]
As if a Dishonesty score of 4 was not enough, you know up it to 5. Kudos.

As anyone withe half a brain and the ability to read knows, I don't "demonize"
Bo for proposing an alternative MOQ to Pirsig's. Indeed, I've said repeatedly
that such a stance (Bo's MOQ is better than Pirsig's MOQ) is VALID. 

Can you understand the word "valid", Platt? Do I need to explain it?

What I condemn is the atrocious dishonesty surrounding the sole goal of
interpretative legitimacy, going so low as to claim to speak better than Pirsig
for his pre-hospitalized ideas.

You bet such dishonesty draws my ire. And I am sure you next post will up the
Dishonest score even more, go for it.