MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 18:31:09 GMT

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level"

    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 - 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 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 18:44:09 GMT