RE: MD "linear causality"

From: Horse (
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 00:48:16 GMT

  • Next message: john williams: "Re: MD "Practical" application"

    Hi John

    And by saying that Pirsig belittles the MoQ and not backing up (or even capable of
    backing up) his assertion with a single quote or shred of evidence Glenn is committing a
    greater evil. He is using knowingly false assertions to discredit anothers position. He
    has also constructed a straw man which he refuses to accept or admit.
    I would love to debate this point with Glen and have asked him to provide material with
    which we can debate. Unfortunately he is not prepared or able to do this.
    As for my tone it is no more or less antaginistic than Glenn's.

    On 4 Jan 2003 at 23:39, John Maher wrote:

    > Hi Horse,
    > If you can't debate properly, then please stay out of
    > the discussion. Why is it that almost every time you
    > contribute you have to antagonise and insult?

    That really made me laugh.
    As for proper debate do you believe that deliberate misrepresentation is how this
    discussion should proceed.

    > To quote Pirsig:
    > "To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that
    > the person who makes it is stupid. . . . .the ad
    > hominem argument is a form of evil."

    Glenns position and statements exemplify this perfectly. I am merely seeking to redress
    the balance. If Glenn knowingly makes a false and denigrating accusation then it IS
    ludicrous and ridiculous and in refusing to defend it because he knows it to be
    indefensible then the implication may be that he is ludicrous and ridiculous. This is NOT
    my belief but neither is it my fault. I believe he is being deliberately antagonistic and I
    have called his bluff. All he has to do is reply to my request.

    > Calling Glenn, 'ludicrous' and 'ridiculous', is evil
    > and has no place here, so please desist or take your
    > insults elsewhere! Equally, your tone leaves a great
    > deal to be desired. Glenn has made a perfectly
    > reasonable and accurate point and if you could be
    > bothered to read his e-mails you might learn
    > something.

    So you think that an unfounded and unsupportable accusation is a fair and reasonable
    point do you? If you think it so then YOU provide quotes that support it as Glenn refuses
    to do so. As for re-reading his mails Glenn knows them better than I do and it is
    standard protocol to reference your own posts when using them for support. So perhaps
    both Glenn and yourself should debate properly and answer the question I have been
    asking which is:

    Provide evidence and quotes for the assertion that Pirsig belittles science.

    Easy peasy, lemon squeezy eh? Well it should be if it's so reasonable and accurate.

    I look forward to your provision of evidence with great eagerness.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 00:45:44 GMT