[MD] Why are things called patterns?

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 09:54:14 PDT 2012 

Hi Horse,

What do you mean by "dim"?  Is that a veiled insult that you told me to stay away from?

Just trying to understand the rules.  Response would be considerate.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> Oh for god's sake stop playing to an audience Mark - there's no sympathy for your moaning and whinging about how unfair I am to you - which I'm not!
> Not a single person has disagreed with me and at least 1 person has agreed (Andre - twice) so it's obvious that they all agree with me - well that's how I prefer to see it. But then no-one has disagreed with you either so you'd take that as agreement. So, by your logic, everyone both agrees and disagrees with everything we say!!!! Are you really that dim as to believe that this is the case?
> If you wish to believe that everyone agrees with you (because they remain silent) then that's up to you, however, you do not have the right to state this as fact or assert that your opinion is correct, because you have no valid grounds to do so other than wishful thinking.
> 
> The rest of your post is emotionally loaded nonsense.
> I don't 'put down' your opinion - I disagree with you.
> My 'rhetoric' is 'negative' because I disagree with you.
> I have 'tolerated' your umpteen posts a day, when the forum rules state a maximum of 4, because I am tolerant.
> The only one of us who has ego problems is you.
> My 'realism' is just that - being realistic and not a self-deluding fool.
> When someone says 'hear hear' you are in agreement with that person not the entire forum.
> You spend more time insulting, belittling and denigrating others than I do.
> 
> And the biggest joke of all is this line:
> "How can I provide examples of agreement if I do not get a response."
> Obviously you can't, so if you can't provide evidence of agreement then don't be so infantile as to CLAIM agreement.
> 
> I disagree with you on so many things and at so many levels I wouldn't know (or care) where to start. For this reason I choose not to engage in pointless debate with you and YOUR ego. And yet I still allow you to continue - how tolerant is that?!?
> 
> So stop whining Mark, stop making false claims, stop being dishonest, stop twisting others argument and stop making appeals to emotion in order to rubbish those who disagree with you. Because if you don't do so of your own accord I will, as list administrator, do so for you.
> Is this clear enough for you?
> 
> Horse
> 
> 
> On 12/03/2012 23:05, 118 wrote:
>> Horse, that is not the case, that i deny the opinions of others.  My point of view is changing as a result of this forum as I hope everyone's is.  Can you honestly say that you have the same point of view you had last year?  This forum is about growth and not sticking with old opinions, that is why we discuss things.
>> 
>> I see no resin why you insist in putting down my opinion if it does not agree with yours; you seem to be the intolerant one.  Show me one post where I have said "you have a problem, Horse".  All this negative rhetoric comes from you.  It is not constructive.  Very rarely do I see an opinion from you that is not just taking sides or admonishing someone because they posted something you don't like.  I see no signs of you being tolerant, unless you are normally a very intolerant person.  Think about it!
>> 
>> So here I say, Horse, you've got a big problem.  What are you going to do, banish me to protect your ego?
>> 
>> If I see agreement, I will call it that.  What is wrong with agreeing anyway.  Are we not allowed to agree?  Your "realism" is somewhat macabre.
>> 
>> When a member says "hear, hear..." and I agree with him are we not in agreement?  Why must you be so combative?
>> 
>> Please show me where I am insulting any more than you are.  You treat Marsha like shit sometimes.  You may be projecting your own hostility on to me.  Please provide examples.
>> 
>> How can I provide examples of agreement if I do not get a response.  What is wrong with my thinking that there is agreement.  Is that not allowed in this forum?
>> 
>> Please indulge me with an explanation.
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> This why there is such a problem communicating with you - you are incapable of agreeing with anyone else's point of view unless it happens to be your own. This is also part of your problem. My stating as such is not negative it is realistic.
>>> 
>>> Preferring or pretending to see agreement where none exists is not only negative it is intellectually dishonest. That is not in the spirit of the MoQ.
>>> 
>>> A lack of response to a question or statement is not a confirmation of its validity - it is a lack of response to a question or statement.
>>> 
>>> On 11/03/2012 16:47, 118 wrote:
>>>> Silence in this forum is bereft of quality.
>>> and yet now you change your tack and say that it does when you said previously that it didn't! Please make up your mind.
>>> 
>>> If someone says nothing to you when you state your point of view you are not entitled to take that as agreement in any sort of rational or intelligent conversation.
>>> 
>>> If you want to present your point of view on this forum then do so, I have not tried to stop you, however if you want to state that other members of this forum agree with your point of view then please present some sort of evidence. If you have no evidence to show this then you cannot claim that you do because you 'prefer' to do so.
>>> 
>>> I am also trying to remain civil in the face of your increasingly irrational and bizarre statements and your (poorly) veiled insults.
>>> 
>>> Horse
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/03/2012 16:21, 118 wrote:
>>>> Hi Horse,
>>>> 
>>>> No, I cannot see that I "have a problem".  What do I have a problem
>>>> with?  Please explain rather than just throw out such a derogatory
>>>> statement.  For such a statement is indeed a negative outlook, and
>>>> certainly is not in the spirit of MoQ.
>>>> 
>>>> If I prefer to see a lack of response as agreement, who are you to
>>>> tell me otherwise?  What do you mean by “the only way.  What book of
>>>> rules are you referring to?  Perhaps you see a lack of response as a
>>>> disagreement.  This could be your choice, but it stems from a negative
>>>> outlook in MoQ.  Remember, Quality is a tendency of the Good, not Bad.
>>>>  Or am I wrong there?  Because of this, the negative and the positive
>>>> are important, and cannot be summarily dismissed as you say.
>>>> 
>>>> Obviously I have presented some questions here.  Shall I take a lack
>>>> of response as a disagreement to how the questions were formulated?
>>>> Sometimes I have no idea where you are coming from.  Therefore I
>>>> request clarification so that I may better understand what you are
>>>> writing to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Take your time and don't just reflexively tell me that I have a
>>>> problem because I have a problem.    I could easily state that you
>>>> have “a problem”, but I see no value in that.  I am trying to remain
>>>> civil to another human being.
>>>> 
>>>> By the way, silence has great value.  It is what occurs between notes
>>>> on a piano. What good would decorative music be without silence?   So
>>>> your “less quality than silence” makes no sense to me whatsoever.
>>>> Maybe you could explain this phrase to me as well.  If not, I can
>>>> always assume that your silence is in disagreement with my statement
>>>> about silence...
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/12/12, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>   wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> Choosing to infer something from nothing is different to inferring
>>>>> something from something - if you can't see that you have a problem.
>>>>> Having a positive or negative outlook is irrelevant.
>>>>> The only way you can know that someone agrees with you is if they say
>>>>> they agree with you.
>>>>> Taking a lack of agreement as agreement has less quality than silence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Horse
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>>> — Frank Zappa
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 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
> 
> -- 
> 
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
> 
> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list