lolwhat? you're not fit to tie his shoe laces. but then again, weak ad-hominems are a pattern to those who aren't, and/or are admiring the clothes of naked emperors, right?
"old scientist" -- chomsky got dragged into this by paying attention ever since the vietnam war, when not many people did. you irresponsible, ungrateful little fuck! (mod that down, ban me -- it's worth saying something that actually matters)
I don't have to be grateful to Chomsky for expressing his opinion, that's his right. I don't know what the Vietnam war has to do with the invention of email.
edit: nor did I ever say anything to run interference for the Vietnam War. Or Pol Pot, or Hugo Chavez...
But then the press still would have missed it. And I for example might never have heard of it.
Also, what makes you think one excludes the other? Why berate the one guy who at least a.) paid attention and b.) wrote about it, for not also doing c.) and d.)?
Everybody is still free to file an objection, including the author, and now actually MORE people who would be inclined to do so, are in a position to do it (i.e. they heard of it, instead of this going down in silence).
Well, first of all, I'm not berating him, which is why I made an effort to note that I largely agree with his point here-- in fact, it is because I agree with him that I thought it was worth pointing out that "raising awareness" through a blog post is only half the battle-- people are far more inclined to respond to it if the author is willing to take the effort and do something about the problem.
Maybe Dave's planning on filing an objection, I don't know. If he is, great. But it is easy to come off as someone whining on the internet even if you have a respectable position if the only thing you're doing is complaining.
"old scientist" -- chomsky got dragged into this by paying attention ever since the vietnam war, when not many people did. you irresponsible, ungrateful little fuck! (mod that down, ban me -- it's worth saying something that actually matters)