At 12:33 AM 06/10/2001, Michael Wiik wrote:
>Mike Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Considering that Chomsky is one of those types who continues to make
> > excuses for the Khmer Rouge's killing fields (one of Chomsky's cause
> > celebre), he is indeed as John describes.
>I've heard that, but never actually read it myself. Which is good, since
>I think I got some useful stuff out of some writings of his about the
>differences in american press coverage when reporting on el salvador vs.
>nicaragua. If I had first encountered Chomsky via his defense of the
>Khmer Rouge I doubt I would have read further.
>What think you, extropians? Would you rather be judged by the best thing
>you wrote, or the worst?
Interesting point Michael.
Hmmm... Lorrey's quote you give above is a good example of why I plonked
him. The harebrained assertion by Lorrey that Chomsky makes excuses for the
Khmer Rouge's murders is not even worth arguing about.
Joe Dees has gone completely off the deep end about Chomsky too. I wonder
what it is about Chomsky that they hate so much. He has always seemed to me
I doubt that either Lorrey or Dees has actually read what Chomsky has
written -- just what others have said about him. I don't idolise the guy, I
just recognise that he's an honest person seeking the truth, and has some
valid info to contribute. To vilify him the way some people here have been
doing strikes me as downright weird. It is not even guilty till proven
innocent, but prejudgement on whim. Hardly the kind of quality we are gonna
need if we are to live comfortably with each other for millennia.
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Virtual Reality Association http://www.vr.org.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT