[MD] freewill

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
It makes no difference to me.  Either is fine with me.  It seems 
trivial to me the way you present it.

[Arlo]
It would be trivial, if we speaking simply of the narrative device. 
Sadly, we are not. Your continued investment here means you do NOT 
think the distinction is trivial, indeed, you're need for 
interpretative legitimacy mandates "The MOQ says" over "Pirsig says".

[Marsha]
And don't confuse saying something coherently, with saying anything of value.

[Arlo]
No, but things spoken coherently are easy to pass value judgements 
on. Befuddled incoherence masquerading as "wisdom" has no real 
refutation other than to point out what it is.

[Marsha]
I do not feel a need to conform to a particular standard of what is 
considered acceptable rhetoric by a language nerd.

[Arlo]
Of course not, its clear you use words to mean whatever you want them 
to. Like I said, I don't know if you genuinely believe that 
incoherence evidences wisdom, but it does not.

[Arlo had said]
Again, there is a difference between an artful mastery of language, 
and a befuddled incoherence.

[Marsha]
Without knowing the topic, or the audience, your comments are  meaningless.

[Arlo]
One does not need to know a topic or an audience to know there is a 
great difference between artful mastery of language and befuddled 
incoherence, but I understand why you can't see it.

As for calling me "naive", well since you equate incoherence and 
confusion with "wisdom", I'll take that as a compliment. I'll stay on 
the "naive" side with the artful and elegant speakers of precision 
and clarity, like the Lama, and you can stay on your "wise" side with 
the confused and incoherent.

And on that note, I'm done, final word is all yours.