[MD] Step One

Thu Oct 21 01:40:09 PDT 2010

As i am reading your production , Jc, it comes in mind that it is clean and
crisp.
regardless of the content,-it looks straight.

I will come clean on some of your questions, even proposals,step by step.
so , maybe i will do a part now, i have to work in shifts,and some parts
later on.

(Adrie)
> Its a mechanism, like the mentionings in your last what? 50 posts of
> Horse's
> name-,completely
> off context-off topic, and without filling in the field, pointing the
other
> listers attention
> to think about Horse as cause of your trouble, cause off Bo's trouble.
>

(JC)
"50" is of course, a complete exaggeration, but I'll allow exaggeration to
make your point that I do bring up the subject.  After all, on this forum,
is not Horse's whim the air that we breathe?  The background of all
discourse?  As an old sysop myself, I keep him in mind.  Since I keep him in
mind, he pops out in my words.

newly added comment , Adrie

The background of all discourse?,...Nope, Horse is not the originator nor
the promotor of
Bo's trouble with the defenitions of the intellectual level.
He did not invent the issue, the problem, nor is he the originator of the
obsessive behaviour
generated by it,...(i do not project this to Bo), lot's of momentum are
gained by the yelling crowd too.

Everything starts with Horse,?, because he is paying the elektricity in the
background, maintaining the
space we like to live in,managing the posts in the background, editing
shedule's, filtering commercial crap out,
in short,...investing a lot of his spare-time and money to make the show
running.

Bo's problem with the defenition of intellect  in the dictionaire?...is Bo's
problem, but he made it
Pirsig's problem, yours , mine, everyone's,..
Do i see a problem with the defenition in the dictionary? nope, its a
condensed explanation, not made by Pirsig.

The defenition also fails on emo-intellect and artificial intellect, if you
ask me, it fails on logic-intellect,groupsintellect
animals intellect,......do i have to go on? Pirsig is not writing
dictionary's, and what he provided in the LILA'S CHILD annotations is
not the annotations themselves , but the work annotated upon,..the
impression he provided about intellect here, is a non-limitative projected
summary in funtion of the annotated upon.

do i need to go on? i don't think so, and i am not going to become obsessive
on the group to tell them that i have a problem
with the limp's in the dictionary.
To use one of Pirsig's pearls,.."the problem was not that is was true or
not, the problem was that nobody was interested."

I short my opinion?,..i think it was a wise dicision made by Horse, to
restrict Bo,..and to protect him againt himself, so no further harm is done.

Everybody likes Bo, even i do,the good Bo, the polite Bo,the stubborn Bo,
...the statue,..

But do i like the bad Bo,the Bo that lost his nerves?..on the moment
supreme? nope.
Do i think he had to leave? no,..surely not.Do i think it was possible for
him to maintain an untanable position forever? no.

So if  you want my opinion, but this is only and purely mine, so read it as
a proposal, my opinion is
that Bo adresses a mail to Horse, explaining the reasons he has to come
back,and settle the score without interference
of other listers, off-list,off sight of the others, there is no need for a
public domain defacement, nor for the cheering of the crowd.

If it is not possible for Bo or Horse to shake hands now, if will work in
their disadvantage for long to come.

And it is not for you and my , JC, or other listers to make bo's or Horse's
trial by jury, in the public domain.

Strictly spoken, this posting can do without answer...,but a solid answer is
an aceptable alternative.
Think about it.
Adrie

2010/10/20 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>

> I think you're overthinking a bit, Adrie.  Something I have a lot of
> experience doing so I recognized it immediately.
>
> (Adrie)
> > Nope,engaging is not chiming in, and no, its not about Dan's critique on
> > your style.
> > Its about sneaking out on the presented subject, by deviating the
> > conversation
> > to the subject of Bo,on a moment in time badly chosen, and solely for the
> > purpose
> > of deviating to something you want to throw in, clearly to associate Dan
> > with the
> > Bo-subject.
> >
>
>
> Backtracking a bit, the challenge made originally was that I was hijacking
> the MD, and refusing its terminology.  So I thought I oughta address that
> challenge head-on, starting at the top of the MoQ - the intellect.
> Reminding dan what a big issue this is, was not my "deviating" it was
> expressly and patiently dealing with what issues were flung my way.  The
> issue of terminology.  The dictionary definition proves Bo's point.
>
> If it was "badly chosen" in matters of timing, I have no idea why.
>
>
>
> > Its a mechanism, like the mentionings in your last what? 50 posts of
> > Horse's
> > name-,completely
> > off context-off topic, and without filling in the field, pointing the
> other
> > listers attention
> > to think about Horse as cause of your trouble, cause off Bo's trouble.
> >
>
>
> "50" is of course, a complete exaggeration, but I'll allow exaggeration to
> make your point that I do bring up the subject.  After all, on this forum,
> is not Horse's whim the air that we breathe?  The background of all
> discourse?  As an old sysop myself, I keep him in mind.  Since I keep him
> in
> mind, he pops out in my words.
>
>
>
> > Guiding the attention by association, suggestion and autosuggestion.
> > You work the same way now , throwing in Mary's name, Marscha, Bo,
> > Platt,...in the silent hope that
> > they wil feel adressed and advocated on their behalfs, and hopefully will
> > chime in to rescue you.
> >
>
> I'm a big boy.  I can rescue myself.  Or choose to drown.  Either way, who
> cares.  Should I refrain from mentioning other people at all Adrie?
>
>
>
> > Suggestion/autosuggestion.Trying to shelter in their armpits
> >
> > No?
> >
> > How many names are following after this? , in the following answers you
> > gave?
> > can you count?
> >
> > Same goes for the deviation on the issue here, you deviate to the
> question
> > about
> > individuals to be excluded, but this was not the issue,and mind this, i
> > made
> > no question
> > what so ever to exclude Bo, nor he is booted out, like you are implying
> > here, very suggestive.
> >
>
> I pointed out long before this, that Bo quit.  I obviously don't need to be
> reminded.  But, Adrie, I think anybody would quit, if they had to deal with
> unrelieved abuse and criticism day after day, and warnings from the
> moderator.  So let's be clear that there is "ok, I retire from the arena as
> requested" and "this just isn't fun for me anymore" and then there is
> getting kicked out.  those are separate things, but they all come out the
> same in the end.
>
> Ask Phaedrus when they tried to ease him out the back door of the
> University
> of Chicago, if there's any functional difference between the front and the
> back.  In the end, he got booted.
>
>
>
> > Tell me, doe you like to know my opinion, Horse his opinion, or do you
> like
> > to shove Bo's
> > opinion, or mary's or marsha's up my ass?, ...
> > Or is there, in the fog out there , a better answer?...like this , this
> is
> > not the current issue!
> >
>
> It seems fair, to pursue the opinions that one values, and to ignore the
> opinions that one doesn't.  Not a very complicated procedure really.   It
> gets tricky though, when one is told that one's opinions are not wanted, by
> those whose opinion one values.  Time to go throw oneself off a cliff,
> evidently.  Or just perhaps shut up for a while.
>
> darn.  Just when it was getting interesting too.
>
> Oh well,
>
> John the lone exception.
> 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
>

-- 
parser