Re: MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game

From: David M (
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 18:20:41 GMT

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Any help"

    Hi Ian

    I kind of think never mind, the abuse seems largely
    pointless but occassionally funny, nice to be
    polite, rather discuss the issues not the people,
    but hey sometimes personality seems to be keeping
    someone static and stuck, but also we all blow a fuse sometimes,
    some sooner some later. So main thing is to take your
    abuse for what it is, just words, and move on.
    But clearly some of us are more emotional and egotistic
    than others. Mark does seem to get seriously angry
    but it may only be seeming. We lack body language here,
    but hey one day we may be able to sit round a virtual table.

    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "ian glendinning" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:31 PM
    Subject: MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game

    > Fellow MoQ'ers,
    > This post is not meant to be about me, it's really just an open
    > question, but bear with me whilst I lead into where I'm coming from
    > ...
    > I like to think I accentuate the positive, look for things to agree
    > with in most threads, or shut up when I don't (Sometimes Platt makes
    > me bite at the bait, but even there I like to think we have a
    > respectful understanding.) I even have the annoying habit of pointing
    > out unwanted potential agreements between contributors who clearly
    > believe they are disagreeing :-)
    > There are some old warriors on this discussion board and familiarity
    > has bred some measure of contempt, but also a measure of "apparent"
    > tolerance to negative personal views expressed. In some ways that's a
    > healthy sign of a mature community I guess.
    > I was impressed following Mr Maxwell's "Straight To Bin" post (to
    > which I didn't respond directly) by Case's creative poetic parody in
    > "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" (and Case is not even one of those old
    > warriors so far as I know). I did respond to that - highlighting my
    > agreement with the core positive point in Mark's post that prompted it
    > - life's too short to argue with everyone who argues against the MoQ,
    > we need positive nurture as well as negative nature - and Mark thanked
    > me for my balanced agreement (!)
    > Marsha managed a positively creative response direct to Mark's post,
    > and Erin was similarly positive in response to Case and Matt.
    > I was even further impressed by Matt Kundert's phlegmatic riposte to
    > Mark, couched in his response to Case's doggerell. Bo of course has
    > not responded, but then Bo is often on a slower, more considered,
    > correspondence cycle. Whilst Matt pointed out that Mark's words
    > included, on the face of it, a direct attack on Bo, and a few others,
    > and a history in the guise of Sqonk (a fact that had escaped me) of
    > similar highly negative and personal "shit list" including Matt.
    > Despite that Matt managed this paragraph .
    > [Matt Quote]
    > But on a serious note, Mark is right. We don't have to talk to
    > everyone here. If we want, we can only join in dialogue with those
    > who are on similiar paths. There is nothing wrong with that in and of
    > itself, kinda' like a research team focusing its collective efforts.
    > The risk is, of course, mindless scholasticism. But there's risk to
    > be incurred with dialoguing with everyone. If you do that, you might
    > never move forward, may never extend some of your original thoughts.
    > You'll just spin your wheels with critics. Personally, balance is
    > what's best, doing one and then the
    > other.
    > [End Quote]
    > Now that's what I call balanced.
    > Positive heroism, the kind I merely aspire to.
    > My question is this.
    > Is all fair in love and war, water off a duck's back ... or should we
    > be rejecting the kind of direct personal negative statements in Mark's
    > post as unacceptable, however incidental they are or however well
    > intentioned the central point or aim ?
    > I'm genuinely curious as to the concensus.
    > Ian
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 18:35:04 GMT