[MD] desires

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
The problem with this complaint is that nobody said that static patterns are never-changing or permanent...

Mary replied:

... In an attempt to understand why Marsha's statement should be attacked I asked the obvious question, which is, that if you don't believe SPOVs are ever-changing, then that must mean you think they are unchanging.  ...given the vociferous objections to Marsha's statement that SPOVs are "ever-changing", that is the only logical alternative for people opposed to Marsha.

dmb says:
"Never-changing" is the only logical alternative to Marsha's "ever-changing"? 

You cannot be serious. Why are there no options between ever and never? Of all the false dilemmas I've ever seen, this one takes the cake. I'll bet there is an official latin name for that particular form of error but the plain term "bogus" will do just fine. 

The reason Marsha's statement so richly deserves to be refuted is that it defies the english language and the MOQ's first distinction. The term "ever-changing" is a good description of Dynamic Quality. That's exactly how Pirsig characterizes the everything that is NOT static quality. Marsha's statement could hardly be more wrong. It blurs and confuses the first and most basic line drawn.

I'm really kind of stunned at how stupid this is getting. I'm just gonna get back to work before I say anything that's deeply regrettable.

Best of luck,