From: Adam Watt (adamwatt@mac.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 00:51:13 BST
Hello Platt!
Poor.. My beliefs are not challenged in the slightest by what's below.
It doesn't even make sense. You might find Limbaugh to be better
quality then Chomsky, but I see no support for that in this post. At
all. Or anywhere else really. I find it absolutely comical that you can
even compare a rabid right wing commentator with a man frequently
described as one of the worlds leading intellectuals. Are you aware,
politics aside, of Chomskys contribution to the field of Linguistics? I
guess not. Because you haven't read his work, and stubbornly refuse to
even try. Despite others, Wim, to his credit asking you in the most
polite terms. And yet you still go on about what Chomsky (hey and me,
and others..) are. That's why I call you ignorant, a fool, and an
idiot. Because that behaviour merits that response. It's my honest
opinion. Free speech, right? I'm sure you''ll defend my right to it.
Furthermore, whenever you have been approached reasonably with a
request for an answer to a question you simply ignore it. I lost count
(3?4?) of the amount of times you were asked to respond to this,
amongst others...
> 'Why is killing 3000 civilians in NYC an act of terror, while 10000 in
> iraq is not'
care to answer? For the 4th or 5th time of asking?
So, I guess what your doing is a classic case of avoidance 'so typical
of conservatives who, when their beliefs are challenged, are unable to
respond intelligently.' To be honest though, perhaps such
Liberal/Conservative polarisations are rather simplistic.. Pot calling
kettle? Except I've granted you your 'intelligent response'. Maybe
you'd care to return the gesture?
Chomsky, as I notice has already been pointed out to you cannot be
accurately described as 'championing Marxism'. So your use of Pirsigs
quote is wholly inappropriate. Perhaps if you read him you could find
that out for yourself, how much encouragement do you need ?
You should consider paying attention to MarshaVs words too :
"Reading Chomsky is healthy. I don't hang on his every word. But when
things really begin to stink, he is there with some interesting and
well documented information. It definitely makes for better informed
citizens."
I agree wholeheartedly. As far as I can see, you have no qualification
to agree or disagree.
I hope to read your response.. Strangely, the only time you do respond
is when ridiculed, which might go some way to explaining why it happens
in the first place. Or maybe it's just frustration, either way, if you
read the above you'll see there's plenty you can offer an intelligent
response to. If your not one who, when your beliefs are challenged, are
unable to respond intelligently'. as sadly it seems, I'm afraid.
Yours honestly,
Adam
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 10:58 pm, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here's a classic example of an ad hominem attack-- so typical of
> liberals who, when their beliefs are challenged, are unable to respond
> intelligently.
> Regards,
> Platt
>
> From Adam Watt:
>> On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 07:57 pm, Platt Holden wrote:
>>
>>> Dear MarshaV:
>>>
>>> PH writes:
>>>>> I have no more intention of reading Chomsky's "Deterring Democracy"
>>>>> than you have of reading Rush Limbaugh's "See, I Told You So."
>>>>> There
>>>>> are thousands of books both pro and con America. A lifetime isn't
>>>>> long
>>>>> enough to read them all.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Platt,
>>>>
>>>> Are you really equating Noam Chomsky to Rush Limbaugh?
>>>
>>> Of course. In fact, Limbaugh's views are higher quality than
>>> Chomsky's.
>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... etc. You MUST be
>>> joking.. if not I can only despair.
>>
>> Holy sheeeeeeet.. - how do you know when you haven't even read any
>> of his
>> work??
>>
>> You're an idiot. No, really.
>>
>> HAVE YOU HAD A HEALTH CHECK LATELY????
>>
>>> He battles for freedom while Chomsky champions Marxism.
>>
>> Crapola.
>>
>>> Pirsig explains:
>>>
>>> "This soup of sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be
>>> straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is
>>> meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.
>>> -society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social control.
>>> Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury;
>>> habeas
>>> corpus; government by consent-these "human rights" are all
>>> intellect-vs.-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality
>>> these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a
>>> rational,
>>> metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher
>>> level
>>> of life from a lower level of life. They are for real. (Lila, 24)"
>>
>> AND?? SO??
>>
>> IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BACK UP YOUR STUPID STATEMENTS????
>> .
>> . WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT???????
>>
>> DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY KNOW???????
>>
>> You are a bag of mad contradictions. Seriously, my 5 year old nephew
>> is far
>> more intelligent, more capable of having a rational conversation, FAR
>> FAR
>> more tolerant and open minded... he's basically more advanced in any
>> evolutionary term than you could hope to be. Ignorant fool.
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 01:11:34 BST