[MD] omg

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Wed Dec 26 22:19:13 PST 2012

Hi Dan,

No, I was not talking to anyone in particular.


On Dec 27, 2012, at 12:48 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you talking to me?
> I mentioned that I was tired of the abuse I have received here, yes.
> But how would you or anyone for that matter like it if they spent a
> good deal of time answering someone's queries only to be told to go
> stuff yourself? You must have read the responses I got from Ron and
> Mark. Both very high quality posts, right?
> Not.
> I always thought this was a discussion group, not a place to be lured
> into a trap or to be heaped with insults that have absolutely nothing
> to do with the matter at hand. And yes, I know you have taken your
> share of abuse too. I commend you for hanging in here. It isn't right
> the way some contributors have treated you either.
> Mark was out of control. He obviously had nothing better to do with
> his time than to type endless posts to the discussion group and worse,
> his understanding of the MOQ was less than negligible. I for one found
> it embarrassing to belong to the same list. There are actually people
> out there reading his posts and taking them as indicative of the
> quality here.
> Is it so much to ask that a person read Lila before contributing to
> the list? Is it so much to ask that we (for the most part) stay on
> task so far as discussing the MOQ? Horse grants us a lot of leeway
> here. We shouldn't take advantage of it.
> Perhaps the discussion I am having with David H. isn't up your alley.
> That's fine. Most all your discussions with Mark weren't up my alley
> either so I left you alone. Until he started in with some really
> incredible statements like the words Robert Pirsig wrote aren't
> important. Come on. What kind of asshole statement is that? What was
> he doing here if the books RMP wrote aren't important?
> Plus, you must remember, Horse asked us all to take a bigger lead here
> if we wanted the list to maintain the quality it has been known for in
> the past. I know I am not the most intelligent person here -- I
> basically shun academia -- but I've been around a long time and I know
> what he is saying. We've had some very high quality contributions in
> the past. But the actions of those like Mark were pulling down
> everyone.
> And just because I am not involved in academia doesn't mean I don't
> respect those who are. I do! I guess I don't feel the pull for it that
> they do. I envy them in a way. I'd like to belong to something bigger
> than me. Perhaps that is part of the reason I've stayed with this
> group for so long. I feel I have learned things here I could never
> learn in a university. But I am probably wrong as I have never
> attended one so how would or could I know that?
> Anyway, I never meant to whine or complain. I was just stating things
> the way I see it. It is all there in the archives if you doubt my
> words. And I do enjoy your posts comparing Zen Buddhism to the MOQ. I
> am hesitant to reply to them as I am not as well-versed in Buddhist
> literature as you.
> Thank you for reading,
> Dan
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 4:56 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> Gents,
>> I can't stand it.  I just can't stand it.  All the sighing, whining and complaining about Mark and I making intellectual discussion impossible.  Where is the high quality intellectual discussion needing to be presented by you "intellectuals"?  Where is it?
>> Lucy

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list