[MD] omg

[Dan Glover]

Oh. Never mind then. :)

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:19 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> No, I was not talking to anyone in particular.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> 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



-- 
http://www.danglover.com