[MD] Where I'm at [Administrator Message]

Tue Sep 14 07:24:12 PDT 2010

Hello Dan, Thanks for the appearance, i still remember your last posting
about the book of changes , and the constructive proposals,
and the moment after that , few days later i think , you'v got extremely
pissed at Bodvar re-appearance here , posting a total incomprihensible
drivelmostruosity, i still see your words in my mind , saying that you would
wish us all sayonara...
I was very pissed that you were so dissapointed.Glad you'r back.

Thx for reading in on  the roll-out of  postings
First , i agree with DMB, Arlo, Horse.
Horse own's a positive injunctionright, his toolbox to interfere is lesser
filled than members that are lesser bound, lesser committed.

I agree with this peoples content and context. Solid stuff.

I hope to have a good influence on JC's case, i like him, and our attitude
here in Europe towards the great problems of life, as he is encountering, is
slightly different than in America.
Belgians are very open minded, we talk about our trouble's very easy among
each-other.
So my optic is to help him to reboot himself, jumpstart him if possible, I
think its time for him to act.

Try to see it in my perspective, he lost his job, wife and now maybe his
house, maybe he is enhancing it a little bit, but in the core
it looks genuine. Did he derail? yes, clearly-and needed some recognition
probably.
Was he off-scale in the postings? yes he was ......But nothing of the human
spirit is strange to me. Everybody will recognise a lesser moment.
By being here among friends, in this list , he became part of the product,
part of the matter, part of the question.
So it is not entirely unnatural that he seeks at least a part of the
solution here.....and i tend to think that a part of the solution is truly
residing here in The moq, the presence of the material, the presence of the
knowledge, the impacting power of other listers...

Did i just declare him innocent and holier than the pope, ...Nope,The
beginning of the conflict with DMb was induced by him...
And Dave was very hard on him, but honestly, my opinion is that it was
nessesary to confront him with the matters in front of him,
i did the same thing ,to serve the purpose to help him.
Dave's outlisted mail was clearly meant not to deface him in the public
domain. It was a hard but solid approach.

Clearly he took as well the medicine from Dave, as mine,and honoured it with
switching to a more solid attitude.
Yesterday he produced a very nice posting, very nicely written, showing out
that he has talent as a narrator and value as a
content providing member. I like to have him within the thinktank of this
list.

I left out some things , bit shortcutting, but you'r all capable of making
the correct associations and abstractions.

Wat really worries me , is that another listmember is launching threads
about the questions of death panels, the questions of death,
The choice of death-,,the choice to die or to live, the answers of the moq
on this matter, or the non-answers? at the same moments of
Jc encountering this loosing of his job, wife, maybe house, clearly
derailing-----

Nobody here dares to say it out loud , but this member is
suggesting/autosuggesting to THINK about the death question on this moments.

The launch of this thread is no coincidence in my opinion.
I have no intention what so ever to call this a criminal intention, and i do
not want to imply it, as i can see it , the religious call out there
to herd JC back to the flock before he leaves...is prominent and implied by
suggestion/autosuggestion.

But religion or the question of death are not the issue now, the real issue
is this imho
Newly emerging listquality in content an context is aborted sideways by
contaminating the conversations in a structured way
and in a structured attack, guided in the background of the listnoise.
The use of shredded monologue's, re-shredded monologue's, omitted mails is
not feared.....as a tool.
It is only some weeks ago that this environment, what i call a thinktank,
looked like a freakshow.
FREAKSHOWS are launched by freaks, because that is what they do.and a freak
will always stay a freak.

Rest me to say, Dan, that quality is on the horizon, and i'm pointing out
towards DMB's proposals to open the fields of congruence,
to explore unseen matter and evidence, people here should honour Dave for
all the work he is doing to show material and expirience.

Does this imply that to stay alive in a pond full of croc's, one has to stay
friends with the master croc?, no...but do not try to
kill the master croc,....maybe its your friend and guardian.

THx for reading this Dan
Adrie

2010/9/14 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>

> Hello everyone
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:25 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Horse said to Krim:
> > You're completely wrong about who has a right to say what on this forum.
> This is a place to discuss Robert Pirsigs MoQ and not just every single
> thing that comes into anyone's head.  .. I do have the right to remove
> people that I think are either detrimental to the running of this list or I
> believe have no purpose here other than to promote some personal agenda.  ..
> This has nothing to do with thought police or censorship or any other
> nonsense that's raised to try and force me to run this list the way others
> want. It has to do with a list administrators right to perform his or her
> job as they see fit. And as I've said before if this is not acceptable to
> any member then they should leave.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Exactly. As Arlo so clearly explained, every community of discourse has
> its boundaries. Far from being a form of censorship, these boundaries define
> a space in which we can think. Those borders are not supposed to keep out
> alternative views or new ideas, of course. They keep out the noise so that
> views and ideas can be heard. A agree with Arlo on that point too. "I don't
> see anyone being "bullied" into silence" and "Horse is far more forgiving
> and generous than I would be". In fact, the lovely sentiment expressed "the
> fucking thought police" by Krimel is a bullying tactic if ever there was
> one. The basic idea is, "I can say whatever I want or you are a Nazi". That
> kind of talk overblown, to say the least. C'mon. Would be oppressive or
> dictatorial or Stalinist to ask the members of a MOQ discussion group to
> discuss the MOQ? Or to refrain from getting in the way of those who do want
> to? It's not about what big brother wants, it's just about the forum's
> purpose. On another matte
> >  r,...
> >
> > Arlo said:
> > ...While there seems to be unresolvable conflict between John and DMB, I
> think DMB was just responding from his own, more private, view that
> expressing some things in a permanently public media is not wise. It is an
> opinion I personally share. Ultimately, John has made the decision to share
> his troubles with the list, and I think this is not an issue given the
> amount he participates in otherwise topical reconstruction. Certainly, I
> wish him well.
> >
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Thanks Arlo. That's how I see it too. My concern about John's personal
> post was not only that it was outside the topical parameters, it also
> unwisely confessed too much. I have to confess that it makes me
> uncomfortable when people seek love or sympathy in a place like this.
>
> Dan:
> I tend to agree. All my stories are fictional in nature though rooted
> in experience. As I explained to  Adrie, the stories I share here are
> like the artists of old who traveled to Italy and studied their craft
> then traveled back home and used the Italian landscape as a backdrop
> in their paintings.
>
> I have to work at writing. One story can take months. Years even. I
> have never actually finished a story to my satisfaction. There is
> always a way to make it better. I read each sentence over and over
> until it is ingrained in my mind and I can shape each word and shift
> it at will. And I work it over and over, never quite happy I have it
> right.
>
> I find it impossible to write as personally as some contributors here.
> I have to have that distance... say, thirty years or so. The tales I
> spin bend and twist in ways I never quite expect. When I am writing
> well, there is a feeling that I am writing well. And when I'm not
> writing well, I know it. Immediately. And there is no sense fighting
> it.
>
> I am a story teller, not an autobiographer. And if I choose to share
> my stories, it is in hopes that others may find some value there, not
> to tug heart strings. It is fiction. Nothing more. .
>
> If I have ever given anyone the impression that my stories are true, I
> apologize. They are not. A person will not come to know me by my
> stories
>
> dmb:
> >I used to love book discussion groups but there was always one or two
> people who'd show up wanting to talk about anything BUT the book. Usually,
> they hadn't read the book and they were lonely. It pulled on my heart
> strings of course, but it also made me angry. It's pretty damn inconsiderate
> and self-indulgent, really. Either you had to let them spoil the book
> discussion, which was the main point of being there, or you had to be a dick
> about it. These are usually not the type of people that can take a hint, you
> know, so you gotta say something about sticking to the topic out loud in
> front of everybody. Then they pretend to go while along while looking for a
> chance to get their revenge with some snide commen
> >  t or other. It's really quite distracting. Then there are the people who
> call talk shows to express their opinion on a topic other than the one being
> broadcast. when you explain that they are off the topic and invite them to
> call back some other time, they often scream about their free speech rights.
> Anyway, I've got some experience with people who don't have a very strong
> sense of these kind a parameters. It's funny, they sincerely wonder why
> others don't want to listen to them and seem genuinely offended that any
> such parameters should apply to them.
>
> Dan:
> There are always those people who find more value in expressing
> themselves than in listening to others.
>
> >dmb:
> > But I don't think there's all that much conflict between John and me. I
> expressed some sympathy off line about his separation from his wife
> recently, while also saying no thanks again to a Royce debate. He seemed to
> take that well enough. As I see it, he's way too soft on theism and he's in
> love with a dead philosophy but it's not personal. Like I said to the guy
> off line (oops!), I don't even pretend to know him. Can you know anyone
> through an email? Not really. In my experience, if I know somebody only thru
> email, one still photograph will alter my impression entirely. Imagine what
> a difference a real, face to face conversation would make. You don't really
> ever know a person until you've gone on a road trip with them. Or camping.
> >
>
> Dan:
> Well, I find that I don't know myself. So I am astonished when others
> claim that they know me. I can assure everyone though that even those
> people who I see face to face everyday do not, nor will they ever,
> know me, despite whatever labels they seek to label me with.
>
> I form opinions of others, often in a moment. But, I would never claim
> to know them. How could I? How can anyone know anyone else with
> certainty?
>
> Dan
> 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