Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:57 PM 8/3/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? I think that's pretty much what David is trying to say. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? Nothing. But then again, there is nothing unfair in it either. It's *their* interpretation of the symbol. You may challenge it if you wish to but that doesn't mean that they are being unfair in interpreting it their way. IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair and do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less than stellar behaviour. Many non-Christians are offended by the use of the cross as a symbol (and some Christians are offended by some of the uses others make of it because some seem to use it in ways they do not find respectful of its meaning) The use of Om and Vedic Hymns in the orgy scenes of Kubrick's last movie [_Eyes Wide Shut_? Can't recall the name but it was something like that and starred Kidman and Cruise] would fall in the latter example. I recall a lot of people got offended over here. Does that mean that those who believe in those things and the positive meanings of those symbols must not display the symbols where anyone who may be offended (or claim to be offended) has a chance of seeing them (e.g., only display the flag inside one's private home or wear a religious symbol under one's street clothes)? I think that would be silly. Display and interpret any symbol the way you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 03:23 PM 8/4/03 +0530, Ritu wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? Nothing. But then again, there is nothing unfair in it either. It's *their* interpretation of the symbol. You may challenge it if you wish to but that doesn't mean that they are being unfair in interpreting it their way. IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair and do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less than stellar behaviour. Nice guys finish last, hunh? ;-) Many non-Christians are offended by the use of the cross as a symbol (and some Christians are offended by some of the uses others make of it because some seem to use it in ways they do not find respectful of its meaning) The use of Om and Vedic Hymns in the orgy scenes of Kubrick's last movie [_Eyes Wide Shut_? Can't recall the name but it was something like that and starred Kidman and Cruise] would fall in the latter example. I recall a lot of people got offended over here. Yes, that was the title. I did not see that film, so I didn't know about the music used. Does that mean that those who believe in those things and the positive meanings of those symbols must not display the symbols where anyone who may be offended (or claim to be offended) has a chance of seeing them (e.g., only display the flag inside one's private home or wear a religious symbol under one's street clothes)? I think that would be silly. Display and interpret any symbol the way you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours. Unfortunately, it may be more than just an issue of offense: sometimes it may be a safety issue. For example, a couple of years or so ago in some town in either Kentucky or Tennessee, a man was shot and killed while driving down the street in his truck which had a sticker in the window with the logo of the local high school football team on it, which logo included the Confederate flag. Whether or not the team should change its logo because some people find that flag offensive, should someone have been murdered for having it on his truck? And then there have been any number of cases when a Jewish boy who wore his yarmulke to school had it ripped off his head and stomped into the ground by a group of bullies who then proceeded to beat him up simply for being different . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair and do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less than stellar behaviour. Nice guys finish last, hunh? ;-) Zigackly! *g* The use of Om and Vedic Hymns in the orgy scenes of Kubrick's last movie [_Eyes Wide Shut_? Can't recall the name but it was something like that and starred Kidman and Cruise] would fall in the latter example. I recall a lot of people got offended over here. Yes, that was the title. I did not see that film, so I didn't know about the music used. You probably wouldn't have noticed the hymns or the Gita shlokas. Though I think 'Om' might be a familiar enough word - it is often used as the chant for satanic cults in Hollywood movies. :) I did see the movie, primarily to see what had people marching on the streets, and I'll say one thing: the pronounciation of the Sanskrit verses was flawless. It was also a very nice rendition with the tabla and the tanpura. Unfortunately, it may be more than just an issue of offense: sometimes it may be a safety issue. snippage of the examples That is true and apparently the precise problem some of my friends in the US are facing. They are Sikhs and their turbans and beards have suddenly become a security problem for them. Some of them chose to cut their hair and shave their beards. Others prefer to take the risk of being mistaken for an Arab by some lunatic bigot than to abjure the marks of their religious identity. It is sad and reprehensible the way some people react to differences but I can't think of any answer other than an individual assessment of the importance of openly displaying your symbols and the environment you are living in. The best answer, of course, would be everyone learning to respect both the differences and the essential sameness. But I am not holding my breath, waiting for that day to dawn. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Display and interpret any symbol the way you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours. As long as *all* they do is feel offended. There have been reports, for example, of Jews in some European countries being attacked for wearing kippot, stars of David, and other Jewish symbols. My rabbi, when he was in Germany, was warned not to wear his kippah on the street. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended or anything like that. The antidote to offensive speech is MORE speech, not less. I think sometimes people misinterpret politeness and civility as silence. Although I agree people should not go out of their way to offend, I also think they should not have to hold back lest they offend. As long as we ascribe honorable motives to each other and a presumption of sincerity, we should be able to say and respond to anything here without fear of being branded with calumny and excoriation. Disagree with me, however vigorously - as long as you let me disagree with you. (Although I hope we will all consider what everyone else is saying before reflexively disagreeing.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Tom Beck wrote: The antidote to offensive speech is MORE speech, not less. I think sometimes people misinterpret politeness and civility as silence. And silence as acquiescence. This is something I completely agree with. Silence often ends up meaning that one lets the ridiculous memes hold sway. That serves no useful purpose. These memes have to be countered by other, more rational memes. Disagree with me, however vigorously I disagree *very* vigorously! (Although I hope we will all consider what everyone else is saying before reflexively disagreeing.) Spoilsport! ;) Ritu GCU Had To Be Done ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of pricediscrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: And then there have been any number of cases when a Jewish boy who wore his yarmulke to school had it ripped off his head and stomped into the ground by a group of bullies who then proceeded to beat him up simply for being different . . . And there was a case where a Jewish student was told to remove the Star of David necklace he was wearing when he went to school because school officials thought it was a gang symbol. *Ignorance* of the beliefs and customs of others can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. At least ignorance can be cured more easily than some other problems Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you mean there are certainly _individual_ conservatives who support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right.? JDG You're exactly right. Oops :-( = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He loves America - while hating all kinds of Americans who don't happen to be exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to the public, by pandering to their prejudices and to their completely misplaced resentments and grudges and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to be better people, he tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, stupid, ignorant shits. How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. Why is it arrogant to believe that a lot of people don't like to think to carefully about a lot of issues and long-term implications of their stance on the same and generally tend to listen to emtoional arguments and be swayed by the prettiest, most emotionally resonant turn of phrase? I consider this to be a fact of political life. At least that is what life, books, history, current affairs and participation in political process have taught me. In the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson, when told that every thinking person was voting for him replied that unfortunately, he needed a majority. It is, of course, impossible to imagine Eisenhower (or Reagan) saying such a thing. They may not have said it but are you quite sure that they did not think so? I find it hard to believe that any politician naive enough to expect the electorate to think carefully would be able to make it that far up on the political ladder. Second, the automatic condescension that most Americans don't think. Apparently nothing has changed since then. If you subsitute the word 'people' for 'Americans', do you find the idea any more palatable? More akin to reality than to arrogance and condescension? There's a point where the argument that criticism is patriotic becomes stupid, not meaningful. If you see Saddam Hussein's Iraq and George Bush's America and can't choose between them because Bush's America isn't perfect, it doesn't make you a patriot who nobly criticizes his country. It makes you someone without the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral distinctions. And just how do you rate the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral judgments? :) When the response of so many to September 11th was to say that we deserved it, or it was a product of our actions, or (as Michael Moore did) that the attacks were mistargeted because they didn't kill Republicans, they weren't prophets engaging in self-criticism. They were self-hating bigots who seek to weaken the defense of Western civilization against those who would destroy it. The first and the last responses to 9/11 which you mention are despicable and not worth any kind of a serious debate. But as far as those who say that it was a product of US actions go, could they not be just people who appreciate the link between Bin Laden and CIA as well as the link between certain foreign policy measures of the US and the support Laden recieves from normal people in some parts of the world? I have not read much of what the American left has had to say about 9/11 but if they care to make the distinction between blaming US for Laden's psychoses and appreciating how US policies might have contributed to Laden's rise, then they may not be self-hating bigots. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Spy Kids: Game over (In 3D) - no spoilers
Hi all, Went to this movie with the kids. Thought it was done very well. Throughout the movie, they made sure everyone knew when to have the glasses on. They put in a small break towards the end to give kids eyes a break. I was a bit skeptical, since the last 3D movie I saw was Jaws 3 or 4, which was a total stinker. Technology: They used the red/blue interference technique for the 3D effect. They had great flexibility in that all of the 3D portions of the movie were done in green screen, so the backgrounds and floors were all digitally done. This allowed the producers of the backgrounds to use colors that worked with with the blue/red 3D. There where some places where one could not tell where an object stood in the 3D space, the brain getting confused about its impossible spatial relationship - but it usually added to the effect. My daughter said that it appeared dark to her, and she had a hard time seeing through the Red side. I thought the blue side was dark myself. I suspect that dominant eye comes into play here. I found you had to be a bit cross-eyed in some parts in order to see things in focus and that at some point the brain decides which color is closer. Content: I will say the racing scenes as they show in the previews, was probably the best racing footage I have seen, putting the pod racers of Star Wars I to shame. It was very cool, and fun to watch. The acting was surprisingly good, with the exception of Stallone, who did a poor job playing a Hippie version of Judge Dread (but what do you expect?). Lots of cameos toward the end. Ricardo Monteblan? was in the movie, and he made a joke that was lost to the kid audience, but every adult laughed. It was not predictable, and took many unexpected turns. One of the bigger surprises was when Frodo showed up to save the day... Summary: I give it 4 stars for the Kids... and Adults should enjoy it as well. Definitely needs to be seen in the Theatre! Don't wait for the DVD. Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Seabiscuit (no spoilers)
Even if you're not enamoured of horses, this is a really good movie - beautifully shot, well-cast, well-acted, and a feel-good story that has the advantage of being (mostly) true. It's a classic American tale of some come-from-behind, beat-the-odds, never-give-up misfit individuals who make good, enabled by a self-made millionaire. You animal-lovers, bring your hankies! (says the woman who has been known to get teary-eyed over the PBS adverts, with the cheetahs and impalas running in slow-motion as orchestral music swells...) :) Debbi Over One Hundred Posts To Read Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seabiscuit (no spoilers)
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brinl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Seabiscuit (no spoilers) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Even if you're not enamoured of horses, this is a really good movie - beautifully shot, well-cast, well-acted, and a feel-good story that has the advantage of being (mostly) true. It's a classic American tale of some come-from-behind, beat-the-odds, never-give-up misfit individuals who make good, enabled by a self-made millionaire. You animal-lovers, bring your hankies! (says the woman who has been known to get teary-eyed over the PBS adverts, with the cheetahs and impalas running in slow-motion as orchestral music swells...) :) Hrm. Did you read the book? I'm wondering how it compares. The book was tremendous and I have a hard time believing they will be able to live up to it. Debbi Over One Hundred Posts To Read Maru Heh. I remember having only unread 100 posts... it was sometime in the 90's. :) *grin* Jon These Days I Average Around 4-500 Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
gilmore
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/cat_heroes.shtml From John Gilmore: It's been interesting reading. I'd like to respond. I suppose the obvious place to start is with Seth Finkelstein's trolls. (Of course he is doing what he accuses me of making outrageous statements and then chuckling when people take them seriously). I flew to London on Virgin Atlantic two days after the BA incident. I am happy to report that I wore the button, and that neither their passengers, cabin stewards, nor pilots were hysterical. I wore the button in London. I crossed the Channel where the crew gave the shorted possible glance at my passport. I wore it yesterday in Paris. The button is not a joke. It's a serious statement which one may agree or disagree with. The point that people seem to be missing is that a suspected terrorist is not the same as a terrorist. Yet, that's exactly the conflation that has occurred: treat every citizen like a suspect, and every suspect like a terrorist. In London and Paris the newspapers are taking Guantanamo seriously because their own citizens are imprisoned there without trials. The corrupt US government was careful to remove the one US citizen they found but the citizens of other sovereign countries, even those of very close war allies, are in prison. Without trial and without lawyers, and with intent to try them in front of judges sworn to take orders from the President. I have no doubt that American citizens, such as myself, would be treated in the same way if the public and the courts would let our fascist leader get away with it. On the BA flight, in my carry-on bag, I had brought the current issue of Reason magazine, which has a cover story with my picture and the label Suspected Terrorist. (It didn't even occur to me to censor my reading material on the flight; I must need political retraining. I hadn't read most of the issue, including Declan's piece in it, plus I wanted to show it to Europeans I met on my vacation.) During the British Airways incident I never removed the magazine from my bag, but supposing I had done so, and merely sat in my seat and read it, would that have been grounds to remove me from the flight (button or no button)? I am not a lawyer (lucky me!) but I do follow legal issues. The carriage of passengers by common carriers is governed by their tariffs, filed with the government. Common carriers are NOT permitted to refuse service to anybody for any reason. In return they are not held liable for the acts of their customers (e.g. transporting dangerous substances, purloined intellectual property, etc). BA's Conditions of Carriage are part of their tariffs (other parts include their prices, etc). You will note paragraph 7: they can refuse passage 7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security. The crew ONLY has the authority to order passengers around when the orders relate to safety or security. An order to cease reading a book would not qualify. Some people here (including Mr. Troll) think that the minor risk that someone on the plane will have a panic attack after reading a tiny button, makes the button a safety issue, as if I had falsely cried fire and risked starting a stampede. Such people seem to be holding me responsible for the actions of others. Were I on such a plane, whether or not I was wearing a button, the person I'd ask them to remove is the one having a panic attack, not the one sitting quietly in their seat. (Similarly, some people hold me responsible for the inconvenience to passengers. As Virgin Atlantic demonstrated, the airline were in complete control of whether or not to inconvenience the passengers.) Let me also say in my defense that I seldom fly these days, so I am not used to life in a gulag. I had zero expectation that my refusal to doff a button would result in the captain returning the plane to the gate. But even if I did fly often, my response would be the same: to constantly push back against the rules that turn a free people into the slaves of a totalitarian regime. I push back using the rights granted me by the constitutional structure of the country, plus my own intelligence and resources. Way too many of you readers are like the Poles who, under orders from swaggering bullies, built the brick wall around their own ghetto, as shown in the award-winning movie The Pianist (which I watched on the Virgin Atlantic flight). The US is currently filling the swaggering bully role at home, in Iraq, and in the rest of the world. (Come out to free countries and ask around, if you disagree.) Here are some interesting incidents relating to these issues: Dr. Bob Rajcoomar gets a settlement and formal apology from TSA only after suing with help from ACLU. Dr. Rajcoomar, a U.S. citizen and Lt. Colonel in the United States Army Reserve, is of Indian descent. After an in-flight incident involving an unruly passenger, Air marshals
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
Continued from Friday (some snippage), and folding in a response to Julia re: point 3)- --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even when it's clear that they don't understand your sarcasm. There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone once said. They'll get it eventually. Intelligence and perspective have little relation, in my experience. If it is obvious that someone interprets your comments as insulting, why not change tack and use a different approach? (as you _have_ done, on occasion) I deliberately wrote sarcasm as a euphemism for 'vicious personal attacks' -- your non-personal humor and irony, OTOH, is funny and welcomed. 2a) This confuses people who might like to consider you a friend, and contrasts with your efforts to be helpful, frex in answering technical questions, or genuinely funny, as in amorphous blobs. Good! There's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity and contrast. Interesting perspective...and dynamic differences of opinion are, I agree, a good thing. However, ambiguity WRT friendliness is a curious attribute to wish to project; this reflects on a discussion last year IIRC about whether this list is a type of community, or merely a forum for discussion. I don't think we reached a concensus on that. 3) You will not allow people to 'back off' from a dispute, but instead try to re-engage the 'hapless victim' in an escalating war of words - which you seem to want to win quite badly. Do tell how I forced someone to send an email to Brin-L. Also, how does one win? Force - of course not; that's silly. But taunt in a way that the reader is likely to flare back? Oh, yes. A personal example: you recently wrote something derogatory about my attributes as a physician. That is the type of remark designed to provoke a sharp response. I chose not to respond at all, but I did *not* appreciate the cut. grin Well, as to the latter, I believe you asked who won? WRT a disagreement we had, when I said I was out of that thread b/c it wasn't fun anymore... serious Getting the last word is one way to 'win' an argument or disagreement. [*I* of course never try to get in the last word. duck lightning!! ;)] 3a) This leads to a cessation of attempts to communicate on the part of the 'hv' cocks head to listen for the good riddance! So, now I am both forcing people to send emails and simultaneously leading them to stop sending emails? Are you studying to be the White Queen? Maybe, just maybe, some people are smarter than you give them credit for, and rather than me somehow controlling (and not controlling) them, my posts might occasionally provide some people something to think about. very serious You tend to go for the jugular, and that frequently either provokes defensive responses or withdrawal. As if you weren't well aware of that. grin Whaddaya mean, studying?!? I stated at the bottom of my post your contributions to List discussions are varied and insightful, which covers that last sentence. 3b) Escalation in the form of personal attacks is your particular forte, when you appear to wish to humiliate 'the enemy.' Graciousness in 'winning' apparently is superfluous. It seems to me that seeing malice in vigorous discussion is your forte. Your definition of vigorous discussion includes personal insults? I write about what I think is important, and argue against things that I don't think are correct. I expect a high standard from people who post on serious topics here, and when I don't see that, I will point it out directly or indirectly. The only winning I can think of is when the discussion is interesting and insightful, or on factual matters, when a mistake is corrected. See above re: 'win,' and also on what I said WRT your contributions to the list. I'm not asking that you stop correcting mistakes you see - just not with personally insulting remarks. But your on-line bullying is excessive, Then we'll just have to disagree, because I cannot be persuaded that writing emails with no direct life consequences or threats is bullying, let alone excessive. If someone becomes terribly upset from reading an email on an email list, well, then maybe they need to chill out. It is just an email list, for goodness sake. If it is affecting your life, your job, your family, or your emotional health then it might be a good idea to reorder your priorities. If someone doesn't join or continue in a discussion because they're unwilling to face your acidity, that is a loss to the list. You have politely corrected people in the past, and that enhances the list - why not use that more instructional mode? I agree that it's too easy to get worked up over a list - but for those who consider it a *community* instead, they want to feel welcome, and may invest a lot of time and effort in participating. In Chat once we
Re: [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snipped paragraph of lingua-babble head jerks up from obfuscationist-babble-induced near-coma That's not obfuscationist babble, that's jargon! The Chomsky Hierarchy Regular languages- Finite automata Context-free languages- Pushdown automata Context-sensitive languages - Linear bounded automata Recursively enumerable languages - Turing machines scratches head And if I understood your response, would I understand the jargon? ;) Let Me Study The Tengwa And Dwarven-Runes Instead Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chomsky is generally repulsive - but people who claim the dissent is marginalized should remember that this anti-Semitic, anti-American bigot is the most cited scientist in the world, and not just because of his linguistics. When he spoke at Harvard while I was there he spoke to a packed and laudatory house, while Harvard professors introduced him as a legendary American dissident. Being an apologist for totalitarian dictators gets you brownie points on the modern left, apparently. Katha Pollitt, among many other things, famously forbade her daughter from flying an American flag after September 11th because it was a symbol of, IIRC, jingoism and hate. If that _doesn't_ bother you, then it explains why the left has no traction in the United States. If it does, remember that the right's extremists are policed by the right as much as by the left, and it might be worth thinking why someone who believes that edits _The Nation_, the most influential magazine of the Left in America. Pat Buchanan doesn't exactly run National Review. No but Pat buchannan did give indorsement to _The new american_ a john birch publication, with extremist views, like defending dictators like augusto pinochet: http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/pinochet/index.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Spy Kids: Game over (In 3D) - no spoilers
-Original Message- From: Horn, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:34 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Spy Kids: Game over (In 3D) - no spoilers From: Chad Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, Went to this movie with the kids. Thought it was done very well. Throughout the movie, they made sure everyone knew when to have the glasses on. They put in a small break towards the end to give kids eyes a break. I was a bit skeptical, since the last 3D movie I saw was Jaws 3 or 4, which was a total stinker. Think it's OK for a 7 year old and a 4 year old? (I have no idea, having not seen the other two. Nita had the honor and pleasure of going with the kids for those!) My girl is 8, and my boy is 4. Max seemed to do just fine, other than the glasses are one size fits all and it took some adjusting... It all seemed very appropiate for 4 and up... Chad - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:40:16PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: I did provide a short explination which you did not respond to. No you did not. You just restated your conclusion with an absurd appeal to general belief. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
He rambled on about the horses used in the movie. No I don't know how to find a transcript. Side note: Have you ever seen the movie Michael Kohlhaas? William Taylor -- Still haven't found a used copy of Spirit ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
If someone doesn't join or continue in a discussion
because they're unwilling to face your acidity, that
is a loss to the list. You have politely corrected
people in the past, and that enhances the list -
I think this is one of the most important statemts made on this topic.
Whether Yo like it or not, whether it is correct or not Erik you ~are~
comeing off as if you wish to win an argument by andy means necisary.
You have said many times that this is not Ego Driven and that it is others
ego which make it apear that way to them. You may be correct about this, but
in the end it doesn't matter. What does matter is the perception.
Believe me, I would not even be saying anything along this line if I didn't
know this particular trait from both sides. And that is in fact why I suggest
to you that you do in fact respond from Ego at times. Not usualy, but enough
to make even me recognize it. And that (even if I do say so myself :) is
saying quite a lot. { you have so much fun presenting ambiguous logical
systems so I figured you would have fun with this paragraph...second level of
humor intended }
Aditionaly, when youyour claws come outYou tend to shut down
discussions that might have been interesting otherwise. And that has a
greater negative effect. At some level you have to understand that you can
contribute constructivly or destructivly.
In hindsite the thread for which this post is titled was efectivly shut down
by me taking something a bit too seriously and being far to hasty about
comeing to that conclusion. My actions, while intending to be constructive,
actualy were destructive. So I am not acusing you of doing anything others do
not do. However, in some small way, you must also share some of the
responsability for that, (say %10 or so) becouse it was your doing which
created the atmosphere. Even if it was not your intention to do so.
So, take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I know I am cetailny
trying to.
=
_
Jan William Coffey
_
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
I wrote: snip I deliberately wrote sarcasm as a euphemism for 'vicious personal attacks' -- your non-personal humor and irony, OTOH, is funny and welcomed. snip Um, that came off a bit more arrogant than I'd intended! What I meant is that there is a difference between wickedly funny humor and personal attacks, and having fun poked at you is OK but personal attacks aren't. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ADMIN: Julia and Jose are running the show, mostly
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, everyone. I managed to get a quick e-mail off to Julia and Jose earlier today to ask them to cover everything list-related for a while. My best friend, business partner and often the backup admin for Brin-L, had a seizure this morning at 3 a.m., went to a nearby hospital, where a CT scan showed a 2x3 cm mass in his left parietal node. He was transferred to Stanford, where he's finally getting some rest now, I think. This is especially difficult for all of us because Dave and his wife lost their first son, at age two, to a brain tumor eight years ago. What a terrible shock. I hope it is operable; at least he's in a great institution. Sending good thoughts your way- Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
At 03:49 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, you wrote: He rambled on about the horses used in the movie. No I don't know how to find a transcript. Side note: Have you ever seen the movie Michael Kohlhaas? William Taylor -- Still haven't found a used copy of Spirit http://www.paulharvey.com/ But PH himself is on vacation, I heard his last show Saturday. I like the 7:50 commercial. In the background you can hear We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. The horse stuff starts after that. I'm suppose to see the movie Sunday, birthday present for mother. I've heard this movie is very bad with the facts. I am one of those people who will note historical mistakes, whether deliberate or accidental. But I don't let it distract from the show, unless it is really bad. I liked LXG with no reservations! Kevin T. - VRWC Time to cut the grass ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Over the pond next week
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going to Scotland tomorrow to see my son, Ted, in Shogun MacBeth at the Churchhill theater in Edinburg. I'll be staying with friends who live north of Aberdeen. One of the side benefits of Teri being on leave with Continental. Listen to some bagpipes for us over there (but if I were you I'd pass on the haggis... :P ) It's August...The Highland's Ranch Scottish Festival Is This Month, The Long's Peak Scottish Festival Is Next - Whooppee! Maru :D __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He loves America - while hating all kinds of Americans who don't happen to be exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to the public, by pandering to their prejudices and to their completely misplaced resentments and grudges and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to be better people, he tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, stupid, ignorant shits. Guatam replied: How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. Guatam, have you ever actually *listened* to Rush Limbaugh? He regularly states facts that are boldfaced lies or misleading generalizations. Here are a few examples from http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec1.1 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?X24916D75 LIMBAUGH: Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits. (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93) REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured. LIMBAUGH: Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth. (Ought to Be, p. 70) REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period. (Told You So, p. 84) REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States) LIMBAUGH: Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years. (Ought to Be, p. 242-243) REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. We're getting out of the housing business. Period, a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985. LIMBAUGH: The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe. (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708. LIMBAUGH: There's no such thing as an implied contract. (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Every first year law student knows there is. [snip] LIMBAUGH: It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]. (Radio show, 4/29/94) REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries, states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 Medical and Health Annual. LIMBAUGH: We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful. (Ought to Be, p. 163) REALITY: The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before, editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93). LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or
Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
In a message dated 8/4/2003 1:08:50 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He rambled on about the horses used in the movie. No, I didn't, but I heard that they used something like 50 horses to get the various different behaviors they needed. One of the horses was actually adopted by the movie company. Side note: Have you ever seen the movie Michael Kohlhaas? No - does it have horses? :) Yes. Medieval Germany at the time of Marin Luther. A breeder taking his horses to market has to leave the best horse as a deposit for the road toll. He gets it back nearly worked to death ...and the rest of the movie is about revenge and justice. And Now You Know The Rest Of The Story Maru Contrary to rumors (which I started) the WB is not planning to do a remake of Mr. Ed at a stud farm. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
At 12:26 AM 8/2/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: It seems to me that seeing malice in vigorous discussion is your forte. I write about what I think is important, and argue against things that I don't think are correct. I expect a high standard from people who post on serious topics here, and when I don't see that, I will point it out directly or indirectly. The only winning I can think of is when the discussion is interesting and insightful, or on factual matters, when a mistake is corrected. Unfortunately, sometimes you give the impression that the mistake to be corrected is that the other list member in the discussion disagrees with you. Or that the other list member says something on the topic at hand which you personally are not interested in at the moment. In either case, your response seems intended to bully that person into silence. If this is not the impression you mean to give, perhaps a review of your tactics is in order? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Deborah Harrell wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snipped paragraph of lingua-babble head jerks up from obfuscationist-babble-induced near-coma That's not obfuscationist babble, that's jargon! The Chomsky Hierarchy Regular languages- Finite automata Context-free languages- Pushdown automata Context-sensitive languages - Linear bounded automata Recursively enumerable languages - Turing machines scratches head And if I understood your response, would I understand the jargon? ;) Possibly. It made *some* sense to me, anyway. However, I'm not sure on the pushdown automata and the linear bounded automata myself. Anyone care to explain? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hunting for Bambi debunked
At least, that was what the person who posted the link to the other mailing list said. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bambi.asp I haven't checked it out myself, am not likely to do so today. If anyone checks it out and wants to share some of the details here, that would be cool. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guatam replied: How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. Guatam, have you ever actually *listened* to Rush Limbaugh? He regularly states facts that are boldfaced lies or misleading generalizations. Here are a few examples from http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec1.1 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?X24916D75 Yes, actually, although not often. I don't have a car, and therefore little reason to listen to the radio. I would point out, btw, that if you are relying on FAIR as a non-partisan source, you're going to be in a lot of trouble. I don't doubt that Limbaugh makes mistakes. He speaks for, what, 2 hours a day, five days a week, 40+ weeks a year, without a script? _Of course_ he makes mistakes. I have a memory for policy minutiae that verges on the photographic, and I make mistakes on this list. I shudder to think how many I would make speaking as much as he does, without the chance to Google for research. In fact, however, you (like Tom) display the usual leftists contempt for those who disagree with you - including the American people. Do you really think Eisenhower won because he lied to the American people? Or do you think that maybe Stevenson's sentiment that most of the American public didn't think had something to do with it? I would posit that the results of the election suggested that they thought pretty well - they certainly thought well enough to vote for someone other than Adlai Stevenson! Have _you_ ever listened to Limbaugh? He's not popular because he lies, he's popular because, first, he's a gifted entertainer, and second, because he speaks to people in a voice that is almost nonexistent in other forms of the mass media - the voice of a patriotic middle American. Not something you can get on NPR - and I _do_ listen to NPR a lot. Limbaugh, like Fox News, is popular because he brilliantly figured out how to provide something that the market wasn't - not unbiased news, but news that lacked the pervasive liberal bias of most of the mass media. On radio, of course, Limbaugh had a particular advantage, where he competes in news terms against the ludicrous NPR. When the left understands that the reason people disagree with you isn't because its smarter than them, or because they're evil liars only seeking power, or as Tom says, shits, then it will start towards political relevance. Until then, Fox News is going to keep beating the snot out of CNN, not because it's biased, but because it understands its audience. Tom likes to talk about Limbaugh hating, btw. When Limbaugh went deaf (in two weeks!) but was treated by a cochlear implant, Eric Alterman's (currently employed by MSNBC, so clearly his dissent was punished harshly - punish me in such a way, please!) comment was that he wished Limbaugh had gone deaf, because the country would be better off without him and his 20 million listeners. Limbaugh's done quite a few reprehensible things. Making fun of Chelsea Clinton on TV, for example, was contemptible. I somehow don't recall him ever wishing that one of his opponents was stricken with deafness, or stating that America would be better off without 20 million of his fellow Americans. Who is more driven by hatred here, exactly? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Reggie Bautista wrote: LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. (Ought to Be, p. 135) Methinks Mr. Limbaugh was buying the cheaper condoms at some point in his life. :) Julia Snide Remark Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Hunting for Bambi debunked
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At least, that was what the person who posted the link to the other mailing list said. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bambi.asp I haven't checked it out myself, am not likely to do so today. If anyone checks it out and wants to share some of the details here, that would be cool. I meant to post that link myself and got distracted. From what I recall, the whole thing was a hoax to sell the videos of naked women getting shot at with paint balls. Not much else worth telling... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: or on factual matters, when a mistake is corrected. Unfortunately, sometimes you give the impression that the mistake to be corrected is that the other list member in the discussion disagrees with you. Which is, in fact, the case, when it is about a factual matter. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snipped paragraph of lingua-babble head jerks up from obfuscationist-babble- induced near-coma That's not obfuscationist babble, that's jargon! The Chomsky Hierarchy Regular languages- Finite automata Context-free languages- Pushdown automata Context-sensitive languages - Linear bounded automata Recursively enumerable languages - Turing machines scratches head And if I understood your response, would I understand the jargon? ;) Possibly. It made *some* sense to me, anyway. However, I'm not sure on the pushdown automata and the linear bounded automata myself. Anyone care to explain? :) And since he's a professor of linguistics, what are we humans classified as? Or is his hierarchy for computers only? Infinitely Bounding Upward Automaton Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever seen the movie Michael Kohlhaas? No - does it have horses? :) Yes. Medieval Germany at the time of Marin Luther. A breeder taking his horses to market has to leave the best horse as a deposit for the road toll. He gets it back nearly worked to death ...and the rest of the movie is about revenge and justice. Did that have Charleton Heston in it? (Sudden flash of him in scruffy peasant clothing stroking the neck of a dark horse, then letting it go.) And does the owner end up broken on the wheel or some similar hideous medieval torture? Contrary to rumors (which I started) the WB is not planning to do a remake of Mr. Ed at a stud farm. LOL Peanut Butter Breath Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Kayaking on Mars?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found this article while searching for info about my favorite planet. Whether or not there is running water on Mars, I thought that the subject line would provoke some imaginations! :) http://www.msnbc.com/news/423452.asp#BODY The images, taken from Global Surveyors mapping orbit about 230 miles (370 kilometers) above the surface, clearly show dry V-shaped gullies trickling down the sides of craters, with fans of debris spread below. Since the areas were unmarked by craters, Malin and Edgett concluded that the gullies were created recently in geological terms perhaps hundreds or thousands or millions of years ago, or even days ago, rather than billions of years ago. Maybe the current missions to Mars will confirm the near-surface water - that would be something! Hmm, what about hoons wind-sand-surfing on Mars? ;) Robinson Crusoe On Mars Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi?
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Did you catch the noon Paul Harvey, Debbi? Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:59:42 -0700 (PDT) snippage Contrary to rumors (which I started) the WB is not planning to do a remake of Mr. Ed at a stud farm. LOL Peanut Butter Breath Maru :) ?? I missed a joke or something. Peanut Butter? Jon Goes Well With Jelly (Read Into THAT What You Will) Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:24:34 -0400 On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Reggie Bautista wrote: LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. (Ought to Be, p. 135) Methinks Mr. Limbaugh was buying the cheaper condoms at some point in his life. :) So was his Dad, apparently! :-) *dirty joke alert* Reminds me of a poster I once spotted in the Village (and now really wish I'd bought) that had a drawing of a certain president on it with the caption, Mr. Nixon, Pull Out Like Your Father Should Have. :-D Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:34:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to me you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on the Left do not criticize Leftist extremists, and those who don't criticize Leftist extremists are lumped into the Left. I have certainly read and spoken to a number of conservatives who do not criticize Coulter and Falwell, so the same argument could be made for the Right. Hi Erik. No, I don't think I'm arguing that. There are certainly _individual_ conservatives who don't support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right. They have no constituency, no influence. Michael Moore - Coulter's best counterpart - is lionized, by contrast. I don't see the difference between not criticizing Chomsky, and not criticizing Limbaugh. They both spout a lot of kooky things. Your argument about speaking without a script is a rationalization -- if Limbaugh cannot avoid ad-libbing all the nonsense that he does, then he should use a script or only make inane ad-lib comments rather than trying to ad-lib something meaningful and getting it wrong. No script is not an excuse. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
