[MD] Fwd: Re: Static Patterns Rock!

[MarshaV]

dmb,

You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of text.  
 
 
Marsha
 
 










> On Oct 14, 2013, at 4:12 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> dmb said:
> How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual evidence doesn't answer your objections, then what would?
> 
> DM replied:
> By actually giving some answers to my questions,  by having a conversation rather than cutting and pasting from your scrap book.  If you have no views of your own and cannot answer my questions or offer interpretations of the author's you like to help explain how they answer my issues I do not understand the point of you just posting your complaints to this list,  just a sort of graffiti it seems to me.
> 
> dmb says:
> I still don't understand. Why doesn't the evidence count as an answer? Why doesn't it count as a conversation to answer with evidence? Why do you think my own views are different from the well-evidenced answers I've given you? This make no sense because I'm answering your questions in the best way possible. Unless,...
> The problem here is that you cannot read this evidence for yourself. Is that it? Is that why you want me to "offer interpretations of the authors". That's why you want me to "help explain how they answer" your issues. In other words, you do not understand how the evidence counts as a responsible answer because you don't know how to read the quotes. That's why you dismiss all the evidence as graffiti. This explains why you have appeared to be so evasive and willfully ignorant. 
> 
> So, what is it that kept you from asking about the meaning of the evidence? Pride? I mean, don't you think that a sincere inquiry would lead you to focus on the evidence, to ask questions, venture an interpretation, try to see the connection between my claims and the evidence that I use to support those claims? What good do you think will come of it if you ignore all the answers and just keep asking the same question over and over again? In effect, you're refusing to deal with the answers while demanding still more answers. It's pretty outrageous behaviour.  You keep saying that the quotes I give "in no way answer the issues" but you never say WHY. It's just some vaguely insulting dismissal, as if the selection and presentation of relevant evidence is somehow not good enough but, dude, that is the gold standard not just cutting and pasting from my scrap book. This is how scholarship works in general and that's how debates are won. If anything, you should be grateful and maybe
> even impressed. 
> 
> 
> It doesn't really even matter what your questions and objections are because the evidence is so abundant that it should paint a clear picture of every operative term you asked about. 
> 
> If you need help understanding the evidence, then ask for it. But don't pretend that evidence is not evidence. Don't pretend you can improve the MOQ before you even understand it. Both attitudes are completely ridiculous and childish. You might think this is just silly abuse, but I'm totally sincere and I think it's a real and valid criticism. Intellectually speaking, to dance around the evidence like that is very sleazy and contemptible.                           
> 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