[MD] It's a trap

[MarshaV]

On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:10 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
>  
> Mark:
> Authoritative Model?  That is pretty lame given the subject matter of
> this forum.  What standards do you subscribe to when it comes to
> Rhetoric?  You are resorting to a dialectic model for defending your
> view, which is Stuck-ness supported by Stuck-ness.  That there should
> be some fundamental baseline with which to evaluate a description of
> Quality is exactly what MoQ is against.  It cannot be evaluated
> through rules as projected from the outside.  


Marsha:
Exactly!  And you have not demonstrated by any means that I am trapped 
anymore than anybody using conventional language.  So your criticisms 
I need not except, and I don't.  




> Mark:
> Quality shines
> throughout and is not confined by Truth.  You are caught in models of
> static quality requiring rules of governance.  The authority is not in
> the room; there is no one you can pin your presentation on.  It is all
> up to you.  Scary isn't it?
> Rhetoric 1:Dialectic 0.
> You are on the wrong side of this debate, which would put you against
> MoQ?  Read Chapter 29 of ZMM again and get back to me.

Marsha:
And your pronouncement that I am on the wrong side of this debate 
is also an opinion I need not accept.  It's just more of your blah, blah, blah...  

Marsha


> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:44 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> If you think that I'm trapped, well then that's what you think, but you have not demonstrated that I am trapped anymore than anybody using conventional language.  And no, you have not offered any standards (authoritative model) by which you are both judging my posts and writing your own.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 6, 2011, at 6:19 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Oh.
>>> 
>>> I suppose the standard would be furthering the MoQ through analogy.  Defensiveness is the quality of standing fast to a concept to show one is unmoved by argument.  Such defensiveness is a cage of SOM, wherein one resorts to words said by another without any creative thought.
>>> 
>>> Your patterned/unpatterned has got you caught.  If you could express this in another way, it may help you.  I have no interest in you, just what you propose in these discussions.  You are safe.
>>> 
>>> Does that answer your question?
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Nov 6, 2011, at 1:52 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> If you choose to label my posts as defensive, rather than as
>>>> intellectual, I'm asking what standards are you using both to
>>>> judge my posts and to write your own?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:40 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of "standards of
>>>>> intellectual discourse".  Could you please ask the question in another
>>>>> way?
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:30 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sweet Mark,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2011 Mark wrote to dmb:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>>> Marsha may think you are attacking her personally rather than having an intellectual debate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2011 Marsha asked Mark:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>> By what standards of intellectual discourse do you write?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I ask again:
>>>>>> I'm still waiting.  By what standards of intellectual discourse do you write?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha