Arafat's last thoughts...
Damn! Just when this scrabbly beard was finally starting to grow in!
Re: This Memorable Day
ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: James A. Donald wrote: So far the Pentagon has shattered the enemy while suffering casualties of about a thousand, which is roughly the same number of casualties as the British empire suffered doing regime change on the Zulu empire - an empire of a quarter of a million semi naked savages mostly armed with spears. Be fair. They had a trained and disciplined army. Most of whom would obey orders to the death. That's worth a hell of a lot in battle. You also had to look at what they were up against. Witness the complete massacre at Isandlwana (the classic Zulu bull-and-horns overran the British camp because the troops were too far away from their ammunition to resupply, no doubt copying Elphinstone's tactic in Afghanistan) vs. post-Isandlwana use of Gatling batteries and massed field artillery (some of which was converted Naval artillery), e.g. Ulundi, where post-battle reports were of piles of Zulu dead mown down by Gatlings. The British only thought that the Zulus were just semi-naked savages until Isandlwana. Peter.
RE: The Full Chomsky
Now I certainly don't agree with a lot of Chomsky, bvut this dude clearly has an axe to grind. For instance, After 9/11, he was more concerned about a fictitious famine in Afghanistan than about the nearly 3,000 incinerated in The World Trade Center attacks. What a fucking idiot. The 3000 were already dead, the 'famine' was about-to-be. A Chomsky nut could say Chomsky helped avert complete catastrophe (though there apparently was a decent amount of famine after all, but nothing like 3MM.) But this misses the point. Mr Donald will no doubt chime in yammering on about Chomsky's lies, but that also misses the point. Chomsky makes very strong arguments supporting a very different view of world events, and he often quotes primary and secondary sources. If you are going to disagree with Chomsky (and in many areas I do), then you've got to actually get off your lazy ass and look up the sources and do some f-in' homework. Only then are you qualified to refute him. -TD From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Full Chomsky Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:20:43 -0500 http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2004/chapin111004.htm MensNewsDaily.com The Full Chomsky November 10, 2004 by Bernard Chapin Question: How could a linguist working as a college professor have omniscient insight regarding the inner-workings of the American government and exclusive knowledge concerning the hidden motivations of every government official in our nation's history? Answer: There's no way he could. Yet, such common sense does little to refute the fact that Noam Chomsky is one of the ten most quoted figures in the humanities. He has published screed after screed deconstructing American foreign policy positions and never has given any indication that his insinuations may somehow be limited by lack of connections or first hand evidence (or, in some cases, any evidence whatsoever). Since the 1960s, he has fully played the role of Wizard Professor and created an entire library's worth of pseudo-academic smog . Until recently, there have been few antidotes for his morass of accusations and allegations, but now we have The Anti-Chomsky Reader, edited by David Horowitz and Peter Collier, which offers purchasers the service of deconstructing the deconstructor. Once you've finished reading it, you'll be highly grateful as Chomsky's lies are so pervasive and counter-intuitive that it's a wonder anyone but the paranoid ever read him in the first place. The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a compilation of essays outlining and refuting the travesties that the M.I.T. linguist has passed off as truth. It does not confine itself to politics alone. Substantial space is given to the analysis of his scholarly publications in linguistics. These are addressed in two chapters called, A Corrupted Linguistics and Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me. In the area of his chosen field, many have given him an intellectual pass but this work does not. His linguistic ideas may be as spurious as his political tomes. All sources give him initial credit for his core academic assumption about the biological basis of grammar, but it seems that he has engaged in little in the way of scientifically verifiable work over the course of the last fifty years. Chomsky's creative terminology dazzles admirers but his new theories inevitably amount to nothing Overall, the compendium leaves no region of his reputation left unexamined. Anti-Americanism is central to his worldview. He never sees this nation as being superior to any other. At best, we mirror the pathologies of totalitarian states. We can discern this clearly in Stephen Morris's Whitewashing Dictatorship in Communist Vietnam and Cambodia. The author sums up Chomsky's fetish for defending the Vietnamese and Democratic Kampuchea aptly when he argues that, As a radical political ideologue, he is crippled by an intense emotional commitment to the cause of anti-Americanism. Operating on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend,' he wholeheartedly embraced the struggle of two of the world's most ruthlessly brutal regimes. Chomsky's hopes for mankind are vested in murderous revolutionaries and not in his own nation. It is our nation, and never the Khmer Rouge, which gives its citizens the freedom to vote, the freedom to trade, and, most obviously, the freedom to spread the type of sedition that Noam Chomsky has been disseminating for close to 40 years. He does not limit himself to Asia, however. The professor has constantly minimized the acts of many totalitarian states. Chomsky regarded Soviet control of eastern Europe, when compared to the American presence in Vietnam, as being practically a paradise We see a man who cares far more about Holocaust deniers than the six million who were exterminated in gas chambers or desolate Russian ravines. After 9/11, he was more concerned about a fictitious famine in Afghanistan than about the nearly 3,000 incinerated in
Re: nyms being attacked by malware
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:16:11AM +0100, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: I've noticed a very high increase of incoming virii and malicious code of various sorts to one of my nyms. Since the nym is not used anywhere publically I really wonder if these are deliberate attacks to try to compromise the machines of people using nyms to protect their identity. Is this something that's a known strategy somehow? Obviously it could also be that the nym was previously used by someone else online and that's partly why it would be interesting to hear other's comments on this. Spammers probe SMTP servers for valid names using dictionary attacks. It's difficult to set up an SMTP server that will accept mail for an address and not also give up the information that the address is valid.
The Full Chomsky
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2004/chapin111004.htm MensNewsDaily.comĀ The Full Chomsky November 10, 2004 by Bernard Chapin Question: How could a linguist working as a college professor have omniscient insight regarding the inner-workings of the American government and exclusive knowledge concerning the hidden motivations of every government official in our nation's history? Answer: There's no way he could. Yet, such common sense does little to refute the fact that Noam Chomsky is one of the ten most quoted figures in the humanities. He has published screed after screed deconstructing American foreign policy positions and never has given any indication that his insinuations may somehow be limited by lack of connections or first hand evidence (or, in some cases, any evidence whatsoever). Since the 1960s, he has fully played the role of Wizard Professor and created an entire library's worth of pseudo-academic smog . Until recently, there have been few antidotes for his morass of accusations and allegations, but now we have The Anti-Chomsky Reader, edited by David Horowitz and Peter Collier, which offers purchasers the service of deconstructing the deconstructor. Once you've finished reading it, you'll be highly grateful as Chomsky's lies are so pervasive and counter-intuitive that it's a wonder anyone but the paranoid ever read him in the first place. The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a compilation of essays outlining and refuting the travesties that the M.I.T. linguist has passed off as truth. It does not confine itself to politics alone. Substantial space is given to the analysis of his scholarly publications in linguistics. These are addressed in two chapters called, A Corrupted Linguistics and Chomsky, Language, World War II and Me. In the area of his chosen field, many have given him an intellectual pass but this work does not. His linguistic ideas may be as spurious as his political tomes. All sources give him initial credit for his core academic assumption about the biological basis of grammar, but it seems that he has engaged in little in the way of scientifically verifiable work over the course of the last fifty years. Chomsky's creative terminology dazzles admirers but his new theories inevitably amount to nothing Overall, the compendium leaves no region of his reputation left unexamined. Anti-Americanism is central to his worldview. He never sees this nation as being superior to any other. At best, we mirror the pathologies of totalitarian states. We can discern this clearly in Stephen Morris's Whitewashing Dictatorship in Communist Vietnam and Cambodia. The author sums up Chomsky's fetish for defending the Vietnamese and Democratic Kampuchea aptly when he argues that, As a radical political ideologue, he is crippled by an intense emotional commitment to the cause of anti-Americanism. Operating on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend,' he wholeheartedly embraced the struggle of two of the world's most ruthlessly brutal regimes. Chomsky's hopes for mankind are vested in murderous revolutionaries and not in his own nation. It is our nation, and never the Khmer Rouge, which gives its citizens the freedom to vote, the freedom to trade, and, most obviously, the freedom to spread the type of sedition that Noam Chomsky has been disseminating for close to 40 years. He does not limit himself to Asia, however. The professor has constantly minimized the acts of many totalitarian states. Chomsky regarded Soviet control of eastern Europe, when compared to the American presence in Vietnam, as being practically a paradise We see a man who cares far more about Holocaust deniers than the six million who were exterminated in gas chambers or desolate Russian ravines. After 9/11, he was more concerned about a fictitious famine in Afghanistan than about the nearly 3,000 incinerated in The World Trade Center attacks. He predicted that the toppling of the Taliban would result in 3 to 4 million famine deaths. When no such famine occurred, he did not issue an apology or retraction. He simply chose to say nothing. There is not much about this world famous ideologue that is genuine. He has ardently defended the right of free speech for anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying cranks like Robert Faurisson and Pierre Guillaume but chose not to say anything, or sign any petitions, supporting Soviet intellectuals relegated to the gulag due to their ideas. Chomsky's self-proclaimed political orientation is preposterous. He is enthralled with the socialist ideal but describes himself as a libertarian. If this were true he would be the first libertarian in history who hated capitalism and the free market. He also claims to be an anarchist but seems to love nothing more than strong governments which redistribute the wealth of its citizens and coerce its people into complying with the socialist ideal. He is so deeply repulsed by our nation, and so entirely lacking in perspective, that
Re: Collateral damage?
On 2004-11-08T20:42:33-0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: How does this change if I'm a child whose trust fund contains the stock? Or if I hold a mutual fund I inherited with a little Exxon stock What part of collateral damage don't you understand? Yep. When we shoot at people we think are terrorists and they turn out to be an innocent Iraqis, we're acting maliciously and we want to turn Iraq in to an American empire. When radial islamists attack us and hit U.S. citizens many of whose only connection to the government is voting biennially, it's collateral damage. -- The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails. -- L. Ron Hubbard
Re: The Values-Vote Myth
On 2004-11-08T10:09:41-0500, John Kelsey wrote: Kerry spent essentially no time talking about the creepy implications of the Jose Padilla case (isn't he still being held incommunicado, pending filing in the right district?), or the US government's use of torture in the war on terror despite treaties and the basic obligations of civilized people not to do that crap. Padilla is still in the naval brig in SC, I suppose. The media seems to think he's still there, or at least thought so as of mid-September. They might be trying to do to him what they did to Hamdi, who's in Saudi Arabia as of a month ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi#Release http://www.mail-archive.com/conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu/thrd2.html (search for Hamdi, there are 8-10 messages about it) I don't know if Padilla has dual citizenship, so there may not be another country that would take him. Apparent citizen-less individuals (mostly citizens of other countries who won't re-accept them when the U.S. tries to deport them) end up being incarcerated indefinitely by the INS. -- The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails. -- L. Ron Hubbard
Re: The Full Chomsky
But James, it is a no-brainer to refute an argument with selective use of an opponents words, phrases, quotations, arguments and beliefs. Debaters are trained and hired to do just this as are propagandists, spin doctors, psychiatrists, journalists, scholars, historians, pr pros, courtiers, literary critics, philosophers, logicians, priests, lovers, indeed most of language and discourse is made up of such mongrelian fabrications. Chomsky, the linguist, knows this better than most, and certainly more than you, an amateur by comparison. He makes no apology for his attacks on apologists for the powerful, he is merely better at it than they are. Not much is worth doing more than helping lance the giants' scrota. You could learn from his linguistic studies and his prowess at detumescing opponents surely more than you can learn by attempting to ramrod him, for you are sure to do so at a level much more superficial than his multi-level critiques and in the process miss the bulk of his argumentative substantiation -- as demonstrated by the biased, blind, vacuousness posted by Dr. Hettinga. Dr. Hettinga is having his fun posting a cornicopia of light-weight straw-men disputation, aw shit call it what it is, lazy-minded inarticulate like that spewed all across Blueland by preachers of blind faith in yelling the same old. Chomsky is one smart SOB, his serious critics readily agree he is surely the intelligent man in the USA, and they learn from him far more than they learn from those who think as they do: beware the adoring choir's roundheels.
Re: The Full Chomsky
-- Tyler Durden wrote: What a fucking idiot. The 3000 were already dead, the 'famine' was about-to-be. A Chomsky nut could say Chomsky helped avert complete catastrophe [...] But this misses the point. Mr Donald will no doubt chime in yammering on about Chomsky's lies, but that also misses the point. Chomsky makes very strong arguments supporting a very different view of world events, and he often quotes primary and secondary sources. No he does not quote primary and secondary sources. He purports to paraphrase primary and secondary sources, When he actually quotes, as he rarely does, he quotes only very small fragments in elaborate and contrived false context, often using made up quotes which resemble, but differ from the original in vital ways. The famine in Afghanistan is a case in point, which has already been discussed in the newsgroups. The sources in original context did not make the claims he attributed to them. I have provided a paragraph by paragraph comparison of source materials with Chomsky's claims about source materials for the issue of the Khmer Rouge - see http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm, but the same story could be written, and indeed has been written, of everything he writes. If you complain that his lies in support of the Khmer Rouge are old news, I will do a similar number on his more recent lies about the Afghan famine. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7d/sRxIb8lHa8J3zbt56pbk45oa+nV8y90GgLfGL 496eTnLDCz/ALgUZmdM3tMRnhmRw8AcO00m0wSerI
Cell Phone Jammer?
Anyone know from first-hand experience about cellphone jammers? I need... 1) A nice little portable, and 2) A higher-powered one that can black out cell phone calls within, say, 50 to 100 feet of a moving vehicle. -TD
