It's also been noticed that when you do not get enough attention for yourself, (like no one responds to your posts,) you try to put someone on the defensive.
On Apr 24, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Andre wrote:
> Ham to Tuukka and Mark and, in the end 'folks':
> That, folks, is my main problem with the MOQ. I appreciate your objection to the "evolutionary" aspect of Pirsig's philosophy, Tuukka, which does indeed "make metaphyhsics a branch of history". But it also branches from the flaw I've outlined above. For the concept of an absolute Quality (whether interpreted as Excellence, Goodness or Morality) simply doesn't pass muster as a logical thesis.
> Hi Ham, this is just one of your ploys (I'm afraid to say). You pick on the 'lesser' characters in this discuss (with all respect due to them). You have a habit of entertaining, and being entertained by, those here who find fault with Pirsig's MoQ. I have noticed this over the years.
> Yet, I have also noticed that, when responded to by dmb or Anthony, being set straight about your own misconceptions about the MoQ (on very solid grounds), you remain suspiciously silent for a time and then...after awhile, you find an opening (of so called weaknesses in its representation of Pirsig's MOQ by the 'lesser' guard) you jump in again.
> Curious that. Taking an opportunistic advantage, not learning anything from those that are in the know, and stroking/reinforcing our (spent) ego are we?
> 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