TINC

Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
> > Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
> > mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
> > you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
> > toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
> > consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
> >
> > B.
> > i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
> >
>
> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>
> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html .)
>
> /M

I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.

Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...

My dear H,
To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.

B.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> Martha Bridegam wrote:
> > georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
> >> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> >>> georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
> >>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
> >>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
> >>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
> >>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
> >>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
> >>>>
> >>>> B.
> >>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
> >>>>
> >>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
> >>>
> >>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
> >>> http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html .)
> >>>
> >>> /M
> >>
> >> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
> >> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
> >> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
> >> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
> >> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
> >> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
> >>
> >> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
> >>
> >> My dear H,
> >> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
> >> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
> >> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
> >> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
> >> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
> >> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
> >> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
> >> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
> >
> > Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
> > seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
> > remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
> >
> > /M
>
> P.S.
>
> My dear Wormwood,
> Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
> ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
> that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
> defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?
>
> Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
> weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having
> exploited it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause
> of plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
> would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
> if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism,
> etc. Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
> self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or
> the bigotry and corruption of his newer friends.
>
> See that you do not fail me here. I have ordered a new plasma screen to
> display the amusing contortions of this mightily bilious soul and I
> shall be sorely disappointed if it does not soon ornament my study wall.
>
> Yours for damnation,
>
> Screwtape
>
>
> (c/o M)

ha ha I did think of Hitch as screwtape but it seemed mean.
And meaner still, Faust...
B.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
>> georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
>>>
>>> B.
>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
>>>
>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>>
>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
>> http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html .)
>>
>> /M
>
> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
>
> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
>
> My dear H,
> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
>
> B.
>

Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?

/M
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

Martha Bridegam wrote:
> georgeorwell.RemoveThis@email.com wrote:
>> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
>>> georgeorwell.RemoveThis@email.com wrote:
>>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
>>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
>>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
>>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
>>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
>>>>
>>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>>>
>>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
>>> http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html .)
>>>
>>> /M
>>
>> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
>> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
>> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
>> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
>> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
>> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
>>
>> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
>>
>> My dear H,
>> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
>> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
>> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
>> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
>> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
>> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
>> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
>> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
>>
>> B.
>>
>
> Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
> seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
> remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
>
> /M

P.S.

My dear Wormwood,
Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?

Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having
exploited it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause
of plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism,
etc. Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or
the bigotry and corruption of his newer friends.

See that you do not fail me here. I have ordered a new plasma screen to
display the amusing contortions of this mightily bilious soul and I
shall be sorely disappointed if it does not soon ornament my study wall.

Yours for damnation,

Screwtape


(c/o M)
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

On 23 jan, 16:01, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....TakeThisOut@hhhh.com> wrote:
> <georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in messagenews:1169418848.383702.316760@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Martha Bridegam wrote:
> > > georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com wrote:
> > >> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> > >>> georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com wrote:
> > >>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
> > >>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
> > >>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
> > >>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
> > >>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
>
> > >>>> B.
> > >>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
>
> > >>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>
> > >>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
> > >>>http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html.)
>
> > >>> /M
>
> > >> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
> > >> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
> > >> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
> > >> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
> > >> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
> > >> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
>
> > >> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
>
> > >> My dear H,
> > >> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
> > >> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
> > >> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
> > >> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
> > >> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
> > >> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
> > >> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
> > >> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
>
> > >> B.
>
> > > Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
> > > seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
> > > remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
>
> > > /M
>
> > P.S.
>
> > My dear Wormwood,
> > Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
> > ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
> > that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
> > defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?
>
> > Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
> > weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having
> > exploited it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause
> > of plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
> > would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
> > if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism,
> > etc. Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
> > self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or
> > the bigotry and corruption of his newer friends.
>
> > See that you do not fail me here. I have ordered a new plasma screen to
> > display the amusing contortions of this mightily bilious soul and I
> > shall be sorely disappointed if it does not soon ornament my study wall.
>
> > Yours for damnation,
>
> > Screwtape
>
> > (c/o M)ha ha I did think of Hitch as screwtape but it seemed mean.
> And meaner still, Faust...
> B.
>
> Chomsky's Faust inne?
>
> ROBBIE- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Faust-like? or Faustian, I don't know. I would say that he is worth
respecting even if one finds him formidable.
B.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

"Martha Bridegam" <bridegam.DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:K2Qsh.68895$wP1.13276@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Martha Bridegam wrote:
>> georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
>>> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
>>>> georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
>>>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
>>>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
>>>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
>>>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
>>>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> B.
>>>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
>>>>>
>>>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>>>>
>>>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
>>>> http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html .)
>>>>
>>>> /M
>>>
>>> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
>>> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
>>> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
>>> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
>>> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
>>> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
>>>
>>> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
>>>
>>> My dear H,
>>> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
>>> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
>>> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
>>> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
>>> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
>>> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
>>> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
>>> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
>>>
>>> B.
>>>
>>
>> Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
>> seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does remind
>> one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
>>
>> /M
>
> P.S.
>
> My dear Wormwood,
> Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
> ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
> that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
> defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?
>
> Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
> weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having exploited
> it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause of
> plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
> would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
> if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism, etc.
> Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
> self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or the
> bigotry

Dear Ms Bridegam,

please try to wean yourself off the use of the word 'bigot'. You are one
yourself you know - see definition 1 Oxford Eng. Dic of 'bigoted'.

ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

<georgeorwell DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message
news:1169418848.383702.316760@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> Martha Bridegam wrote:
> > georgeorwell DeleteThis @email.com wrote:
> >> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> >>> georgeorwell DeleteThis @email.com wrote:
> >>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every thing-you-do
> >>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They remember
> >>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
> >>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
> >>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
> >>>>
> >>>> B.
> >>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
> >>>>
> >>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
> >>>
> >>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
> >>> http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html .)
> >>>
> >>> /M
> >>
> >> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
> >> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
> >> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless. Hitchens'
> >> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
> >> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and it
> >> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
> >>
> >> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
> >>
> >> My dear H,
> >> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
> >> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
> >> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you do
> >> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
> >> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that you
> >> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true that
> >> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it would
> >> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
> >
> > Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
> > seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
> > remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
> >
> > /M
>
> P.S.
>
> My dear Wormwood,
> Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
> ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
> that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
> defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?
>
> Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
> weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having
> exploited it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause
> of plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
> would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
> if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism,
> etc. Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
> self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or
> the bigotry and corruption of his newer friends.
>
> See that you do not fail me here. I have ordered a new plasma screen to
> display the amusing contortions of this mightily bilious soul and I
> shall be sorely disappointed if it does not soon ornament my study wall.
>
> Yours for damnation,
>
> Screwtape
>
>
> (c/o M)

ha ha I did think of Hitch as screwtape but it seemed mean.
And meaner still, Faust...
B.

Chomsky's Faust inne?

ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

On 24 jan, 13:51, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....TakeThisOut@hhhh.com> wrote:
> <georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in messagenews:1169611088.718416.169310@d71g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 23 jan, 16:01, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....TakeThisOut@hhhh.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:1169418848.383702.316760@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Martha Bridegam a écrit :
>
> > > Martha Bridegam wrote:
> > > > georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com wrote:
> > > >> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> > > >>> georgeorw....TakeThisOut@email.com wrote:
> > > >>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every
> > > >>>> thing-you-do
> > > >>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They
> > > >>>> remember
> > > >>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
> > > >>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
> > > >>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
>
> > > >>>> B.
> > > >>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
>
> > > >>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>
> > > >>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
> > > >>>http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html.)
>
> > > >>> /M
>
> > > >> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
> > > >> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
> > > >> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless.
> > > >> Hitchens'
> > > >> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
> > > >> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and
> > > >> it
> > > >> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
>
> > > >> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
>
> > > >> My dear H,
> > > >> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
> > > >> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
> > > >> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you
> > > >> do
> > > >> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
> > > >> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that
> > > >> you
> > > >> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true
> > > >> that
> > > >> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it
> > > >> would
> > > >> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
>
> > > >> B.
>
> > > > Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
> > > > seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
> > > > remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
>
> > > > /M
>
> > > P.S.
>
> > > My dear Wormwood,
> > > Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
> > > ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
> > > that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
> > > defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?
>
> > > Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
> > > weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having
> > > exploited it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause
> > > of plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
> > > would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
> > > if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism,
> > > etc. Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
> > > self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or
> > > the bigotry and corruption of his newer friends.
>
> > > See that you do not fail me here. I have ordered a new plasma screen to
> > > display the amusing contortions of this mightily bilious soul and I
> > > shall be sorely disappointed if it does not soon ornament my study wall.
>
> > > Yours for damnation,
>
> > > Screwtape
>
> > > (c/o M)ha ha I did think of Hitch as screwtape but it seemed mean.
> > And meaner still, Faust...
> > B.
>
> > Chomsky's Faust inne?
>
> > ROBBIE- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -- Afficher le texte des
> > messages précédents -Faust-like? or Faustian, I don't know. I would say that he is worth
> respecting even if one finds him formidable.
>
> LOL! Getchaself The Anti-Chomsky Reader. Admiring Smchchmosky is like
> saying: any frienda Pol Pot's is a pal o' mine!
>
> ROBBIE.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

I have not read much by, or about, Chomsky. But should I need more
information, I would not first turn to his enemies (just as I would not
want to turn to, say, Scott Lucas to learn about Orwell). Certain
things I've read by Chomsky seem ok at face value:

"One moral truism that should not provoke controversy is the
principle of universality: We should apply to ourselves the same
standards we apply to others-in fact, more stringent ones," writes
Chomsky (Khaleej Times, August 6, 2004).

That statement coincides with my own philosophy.

At a glance however, I can see that he is misrepresented. Take this
incident for example. I quote:

"Consider journalist Andrew Sullivan. After Chomsky's appearance on
HBOs 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on November 5, 2004, guest Sullivan
let loose, saying that 'people who support the Soviet Union, as Chomsky
did for so long ... do not deserve fundamental respect. ....'
Anyone who reads Chomsky knows his disdain for the Soviet Union. I
sent Sullivan two e-mails challenging him on the point, copying in
Chomsky.
Reading a Chomsky reply e-mail, I could imagine him laughing as he
wrote about denunciations from noted contemporary totalitarians:
'I don't know if you are aware of how funny the line about my
supporting Russia is. Two minutes research would have shown him that
I've been strongly anti-Leninist throughout my life, in fact from
childhood. He may not know it, but the Kremlin surely did. I was utter
anathema there, so much so that my entire professional field
[linguistics] was banned. I couldn't even send technical papers to
colleagues and friends in Eastern Europe because it would get them into
trouble. It wasn't until the mid-80s that there were any openings.
One of the favorite weeks of my life was in about 1980, when I received
two dailies denouncing me furiously for my work on transformational
grammar: One was Izvestia, denouncing it as counterrevolutionary, and
the other was Argentina's La Prensa (at the peak of the neo-Nazi
military dictatorship), denouncing it as dangerously revolutionary.
They're all basically alike, and Sullivan fits in probably better
than he knows.' " (http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky.htm)

I am not the person to debate Chomsky's merits. Perhaps this book has
its facts neatly lined up with documentation - I don't know - but I
would still want to begin my investigation by actually reading the
writings of Chomsky himself.
B.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

<georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169611088.718416.169310@d71g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


On 23 jan, 16:01, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....DeleteThis@hhhh.com> wrote:
> <georgeorw....DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1169418848.383702.316760@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Martha Bridegam wrote:
> > > georgeorw....DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
> > >> Martha Bridegam a écrit :
> > >>> georgeorw....DeleteThis@email.com wrote:
> > >>>> Every link-you-take and every search-you-make and every
> > >>>> thing-you-do
> > >>>> mit Google is recorded and kept in a database - forever.They
> > >>>> remember
> > >>>> you and your little IP number too. If you refuse to let the google
> > >>>> toolbar on your browser they remember *that* too. Big Google: the
> > >>>> consequences of every act are included in the act itself. Forever.
>
> > >>>> B.
> > >>>> i dont care theyll get me i dont care i dont care
>
> > >>> I suppose this is where living "as if" comes in.
>
> > >>> (See the Vaclav Havel bit at
> > >>>http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,590812,00.html.)
>
> > >>> /M
>
> > >> I suppose I do live "as if" google and organizations of that ilk were
> > >> benign. I don't really believe that google is some sort of cabal, but
> > >> one sees the possibilities for evil in its power nonetheless.
> > >> Hitchens'
> > >> idea of "as if" perhaps works sometimes - Gandhi "as if-ed" the
> > >> British, but one wouldn't have been able to "as if" the Nazis, and
> > >> it
> > >> did not work in 1989 at Tiananmen Square, for example.
>
> > >> Has Hitchens reached curmudgeon status yet?? He is so much fun...
>
> > >> My dear H,
> > >> To begin, it's no use continuing to live "as if" 12 doughnuts for
> > >> breakfast do not increase the waistline. Rather, try to live "as if"
> > >> there will be more food tomorrow. Secondly: try to write "as if" you
> > >> do
> > >> not believe that your own words fall from your pen like priceless
> > >> diamonds and pearls: your reader will only get the impression that
> > >> you
> > >> have impressed yourself above all else. Thirdly, while it is true
> > >> that
> > >> your message about Orwell is a positive thing, how much better it
> > >> would
> > >> be if you wrote "as if" you had read *Animal Farm*.
>
> > >> B.
>
> > > Although that was one of Hitchens' last good essays before he cast his
> > > seed upon the ground completely, that "My dear X..." business does
> > > remind one of Screwtape, doesn't it?
>
> > > /M
>
> > P.S.
>
> > My dear Wormwood,
> > Be sure H. continues to associate the more appallingly virtuous of his
> > ex-friends with the less attractive aspects of 1930s Stalinism. We know
> > that's not strictly fair but we can't have such a valuable property
> > defecting back to the side of the angels, now, can we?
>
> > Mild liberalism is regaining strength in Washington, and H. has a fatal
> > weakness for the sense of membership -- as you know well, having
> > exploited it so brilliantly in the past to bring him around to the cause
> > of plutarchy. You must be on your guard now, as a swing back to the left
> > would serve not only his need to feel accepted, but also his unfortunate
> > if presently submerged tendencies toward compassion, egalitarianism,
> > etc. Encourage his grandiose sense of self-sufficiency. Suppress any
> > self-examination concerning the size or origins of his own income, or
> > the bigotry and corruption of his newer friends.
>
> > See that you do not fail me here. I have ordered a new plasma screen to
> > display the amusing contortions of this mightily bilious soul and I
> > shall be sorely disappointed if it does not soon ornament my study wall.
>
> > Yours for damnation,
>
> > Screwtape
>
> > (c/o M)ha ha I did think of Hitch as screwtape but it seemed mean.
> And meaner still, Faust...
> B.
>
> Chomsky's Faust inne?
>
> ROBBIE- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -- Afficher le texte des
> messages précédents -
Faust-like? or Faustian, I don't know. I would say that he is worth
respecting even if one finds him formidable.

LOL! Getchaself The Anti-Chomsky Reader. Admiring Smchchmosky is like
saying: any frienda Pol Pot's is a pal o' mine!

ROBBIE.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

On Jan 24, 4:18 pm, georgeorw... RemoveThis @email.com wrote:
> I am not the person to debate Chomsky's merits. Perhaps this book has
> its facts neatly lined up with documentation - I don't know - but I
> would still want to begin my investigation by actually reading the
> writings of Chomsky himself.

It's probably better to read Chomsky than to read about Chomsky -- and
he has a set of passionate groupies every bit as unbalanced as his
stalkers.

That said, while Chomsky's moral sensability is very attractive, it's
unwise to rely on him to represent history truthfully. I've written
about my own experience of reading Chomsky after learning the history
of early 20th century American intervention in Latin America, and
discovering that Chomsky was simply betting his readers would never
check his sources. From what I've seen since, this is a consistent
pattern in his writing.

Still, you'll have to make your own mind up. If you're like me, there
won't be a single overwhelmingly wrong argument that'll change your
mind, rather a quibble here and there with points used to back up
otherwise reasonable arguments (e.g.
http://horizon.bloghouse.net/archives/000892.html ) -- where you
compare a supporting statement of his with what you already know and
say "Hey, that's not quite right." Eventually these start to add up,
as I noted here a couple of years ago (
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.george-orwell/browse_thread/t...ad/f4d9
). The result, for me at least, is a rather odd sort of conclusion to
make about a writer -- he's not necessarily wrong, he's just lying --
all the time.

This kind of person tends to drive away serious criticism: who wants to
come off as a nitpicker? And who bothers arguing with a marginal
propagandist anyway? It's especially easy for Chomsky fans to brush off
such critics, since they can always claim that the critic is quibbling
over details instead of engaging Chomsky's argument. Only the doggged
, or those like Horowitz who have their own axe to grind. As for me,
I enjoy nitpicking, and at this point feel enough annoyance at Chomsky
(even leaving aside the damage he's done to the field of Linguistics)
that I suspect I'd enjoy Robbie's Anti-Chomsky reader.

I think that Oliver Kamm -- a dogged Chomsky critic -- put it best here
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/chomsky_on_pale.html )
"I frequently receive emails from inquirers who assert how much they
admire and have been influenced by Professor Chomsky's political
writings. I usually reply that Chomsky can be highly convincing in the
absence of background material or exposure to reputable historical
sources and scholarship. The appearance of a logical argument
constructed from a range of sources, and with copious footnotes, gives
an impression of mastery of the relevant material. But an impression is
all it is. Once you look below the surface, and consider Chomsky's work
alongside the writings of historians and other specialists in the
fields he writes about, you gain a different impression"

Best of luck to you.

-Ben.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

On 25 jan, 09:30, "Ben Brumfield" <oldb... RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 4:18 pm, georgeorw... RemoveThis @email.com wrote:
>
> > I am not the person to debate Chomsky's merits. Perhaps this book has
> > its facts neatly lined up with documentation - I don't know - but I
> > would still want to begin my investigation by actually reading the
> > writings of Chomsky himself.It's probably better to read Chomsky than to read about Chomsky -- and
> he has a set of passionate groupies every bit as unbalanced as his
> stalkers.
>
> That said, while Chomsky's moral sensability is very attractive, it's
> unwise to rely on him to represent history truthfully. I've written
> about my own experience of reading Chomsky after learning the history
> of early 20th century American intervention in Latin America, and
> discovering that Chomsky was simply betting his readers would never
> check his sources. From what I've seen since, this is a consistent
> pattern in his writing.
>
> Still, you'll have to make your own mind up. If you're like me, there
> won't be a single overwhelmingly wrong argument that'll change your
> mind, rather a quibble here and there with points used to back up
> otherwise reasonable arguments (e.g.http://horizon.bloghouse.net/archives/000892.html) -- where you
> compare a supporting statement of his with what you already know and
> say "Hey, that's not quite right." Eventually these start to add up,
> as I noted here a couple of years ago (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.george-orwell/browse_thread/...
> ). The result, for me at least, is a rather odd sort of conclusion to
> make about a writer -- he's not necessarily wrong, he's just lying --
> all the time.
>
> This kind of person tends to drive away serious criticism: who wants to
> come off as a nitpicker? And who bothers arguing with a marginal
> propagandist anyway? It's especially easy for Chomsky fans to brush off
> such critics, since they can always claim that the critic is quibbling
> over details instead of engaging Chomsky's argument. Only the doggged
> , or those like Horowitz who have their own axe to grind. As for me,
> I enjoy nitpicking, and at this point feel enough annoyance at Chomsky
> (even leaving aside the damage he's done to the field of Linguistics)
> that I suspect I'd enjoy Robbie's Anti-Chomsky reader.
>
> I think that Oliver Kamm -- a dogged Chomsky critic -- put it best here
> :(http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/chomsky_on_pale.html)
> "I frequently receive emails from inquirers who assert how much they
> admire and have been influenced by Professor Chomsky's political
> writings. I usually reply that Chomsky can be highly convincing in the
> absence of background material or exposure to reputable historical
> sources and scholarship. The appearance of a logical argument
> constructed from a range of sources, and with copious footnotes, gives
> an impression of mastery of the relevant material. But an impression is
> all it is. Once you look below the surface, and consider Chomsky's work
> alongside the writings of historians and other specialists in the
> fields he writes about, you gain a different impression"
>
> Best of luck to you.
>
> -Ben.
Thanks for the info. I hadn't really intended to add Chomsky to my
reading list at this time. Still, I ask: what, exactly, does he *want*?
Is his diabolical plan, say, to destroy our belief in our own ability
to reason for ourselves? or is he trying for the opposite effect? And
what is this 'damage he's done to the field of Linguistics' that you
mention? Is that the consensus? Is it going to be repaired soon?? The
statement you quote by Oliver Kamm seems to be doing exactly the thing
of which he accuses Chomsky: it is a broad swipe that leaves a negative
impression without actually backing it up, other than counting on us to
wade through a lot of source material and footnotes, which - after
being happily armed with Kamm's expert judgment! - we'll now see for
what they *really* are.
B.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

On Jan 25, 1:25 pm, georgeorw... DeleteThis @email.com wrote:
> Still, I ask: what, exactly, does he *want*?
> Is his diabolical plan, say, to destroy our belief in our own ability
> to reason for ourselves? or is he trying for the opposite effect?

I have very little idea what Chomsky actually wants. As I said, my
problem is with his methodology rather than his politics themselves.
If I were pressed to go out on a limb, I suspect that Chomsky's
motivation is personal success, as measured by appearances on the
lecture circuit and adulation by an audience he writes for.

He's had a great deal of success playing the maddening contrarian in a
way that's perhaps most reminiscent of Socrates. The section you quote
earlier is a good example of this: the reason that Chomsky is accused
of being pro-USSR is that he consistently presents a narrative of the
Cold War that pairs each Soviet action as a justified response to a
Western provocation. His response to this accusation is "Hey, the USSR
hated my linguistic theories!" Similarly, after opposing any
projection of American power abroad (whether against the Taliban or
Milosevic) and writing books theorizing that the US is a propaganda
state, he'll defend himself against charges of anti-Americanism by
quoting himself has having claimed the US is the most free country in
the world. After becoming acquainted with Chomsky's writing, this
seems as convincing as "lots of my friends are Jewish" after a
three-hour harangue about international financiers and Israel.

The thing is, I think Chomsky probably is sincere when he says these
things. He's more of a antipolitical purist or cynic than someone
willing to stand up for any fallible human policy, organization, or
position.

> And
> what is this 'damage he's done to the field of Linguistics' that you
> mention? Is that the consensus?
Heavens no. Lingustics is divided between Chomsky- and anti-Chomsky
camps. The "damage" of which I speak is the set of theories that
legitimate the study of linguistics by lazy monoglots. But I won't go
farther into that here, as I'm getting above my head.

> The
> statement you quote by Oliver Kamm seems to be doing exactly the thing
> of which he accuses Chomsky: it is a broad swipe that leaves a negative
> impression without actually backing it up, other than counting on us to
> wade through a lot of source material and footnotes, which - after
> being happily armed with Kamm's expert judgment! - we'll now see for
> what they *really* are.

To be fair, Kamm's statement was a conclusion to a long, nitpicky
criticism of Chomsky's rather obvious misrepresentation of a speech by
Ehud Olmert. If you follow the link, you can judge for yourself, or I
could post the relevant bits for you. It is, representative of Chomsky
criticism -- read one occasion and you think "He used a quote out of
context -- so what?". Once you start spotting such distortions in the
majority of speeches and intervews that Chomsky makes -- in my case,
almost every time Chomsky touched on an obscure subect I happened to
know something about -- you start to think the nitpickers have a point.

-Ben
 >> Stay informed about: TINC 

On Jan 25, 11:30 am, "Ben Brumfield" <oldb....TakeThisOut@my-deja.com> wrote:

> The result, for me at least, is a rather odd sort of conclusion to
> make about a writer -- he's not necessarily wrong, he's just lying --
> all the time.

Ben you've outdone yourself. Perhaps someone could construct an
argument that someone who is lying all the time is a good or great
writer of fiction. But a writer on history and politics or just about
anything else, never.

Plus arguing with someone who is wrong about most of the little things
is infuriating and likely pointless. When debating things in the real
world it helps to have a mastery or at least an inkling of those things
that are googleable.
 >> Stay informed about: TINC