From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 22:27:39 GMT
Marsha, Scott and all MOQers:
First, here is a brief summary of the recent exchanges between Marsha and
Scott....
On Wednesday morning, Marsha said to Scott:
Originally your statement was "Intellect, Consciousness, and Quality are all
names for the same (non-)thing." Now your saying that they are not the
same, but at "any event" Quality, Consciousness and Intellect are present.
Is that correct? Are all three always present?
Since you are now saying that Intellect, Consciousness and Quality are not
the same (non thing), they must mean something different. Would you please
define the meaning of each as you are using them in your theory.
On Wednesday afternoon, Marsha said to Scott:
What exactly are you saying? ...While it might be interesting to think
about, in my opinion it doesn't follow that you have enough clarity of
thought to attack MOQ
Late Thurday night, Marsha said to Scott:
I haven't been able to make sense of your theory. There's been too much
confusion and you've had to correct yourself a number of times. So maybe
I'll ask that you again clearly state your hypothesis.
On Friday, Marsha said to Scott:
I thought I better give you an example of where my confusion is coming
from. You stated that Quality and Intellect cannot be defined, but have
different connotations. What is 'connotation' if not a shift in
meaning? How do you expect to have your theory understood if your using so
many words without meaning?
On Saturday, Marsha said to Scott:
You haven't said just one word can't be defined. You've said a whole bunch
of words, that you're using, can't be defined. You may have something in
you mind, but you haven't stated it as an understandable hypothesis. Your
hypothesis is made up of statements using words you've said can't be
defined. Does that make sense to you?
dmb chimes in:
Anyone else notice a pattern here? I'm with Marsha, who is apparently a
woman with unlimited patience. I think Scott doesn't understand the MOQ
clearly enough to even discuss it, let alone attack it or improve it. I
think Scott makes no sense at all, contradicts himself constantly, and badly
misinterprets everything he quotes. I'm tempted to follow up with specific
examples of Scott's hackery, but then I rememeber how utterly impervious he
is to such explanations and I wonder why I should make the effort. Nothing
sucks the gumption out of a conversation faster. Sigh.
thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 12 2005 - 22:31:58 GMT