Today, one of the guys at work said that I, meaning me (Greg Lange), lie more than Noam Chomsky.
That is pretty much the gravest insult I've ever received.
Noam Chomsky is a horrible person whose very milieu is the lie (and the big lie) (and the repeated lie) (and proof by assertion) (and hating the good for being good) (and advocating socialism) (and the abuse of "logic").
Noam Chomsky swims in lies. Noam Chomsky can't get out of bed in the morning without lying. Noam Chomsky's lies are cited by "scholars" to support yet more lies (the Wikipedia article says he's the eighth most-cited scholar ever). Noam Chomsky is the root of entire universe of lies.
I could spend the rest of my life lying with every word that I utter and I would not be responsible for more lies than Noam Chomsky.
If you don't know who Noam Chomsky is, you can think of him this way. Think about the most evil people that have ever lived and think of what those people have done. Think about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Joseph Stalin, Vlad Tepes, and Immanuel Kant. Now, add Noam Chomsky to that list and you'll have Noam Chomsky properly classified in your mind.
If you'd like to stare into the face of madness, watch some of these videos.
In particular, watch this video. The key thing to watch for is at the very beginning. Do you know what he's drinking out of that tiny cup? That's right. He's consuming pure evil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
You're an idiot, Greg
Mr. Symonds,
I find it interesting that you lower yourself to respond to obvious comic absurdities with trite insults. You seem like you're an otherwise intelligent person. Am I mistaken?
Nels
Nels
"Obvious comic absurdities" have a habit of being picked up by so-called "intelligent" people who have hidden agendas...and who have the ability and power to dress up Greg's dangerous idiocy into something insanely 'sensible'.
As Chomsky himself said :
"THE PERSON WHO THROWS MUD ALWAYS WINS..."
(Source : "Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media - 1994 - Page 174)
But perhaps you are right, Nels, one should not dignify Greg's lethal nonsense with a response...
No...I stand by my gut reaction :
"Greg, you're an idiot"
Mr. Symonds,
Well, it appears that I am indeed mistaken. In your reply to my comment, you use someone else's words, put words in my mouth, and repeat your simple words.
If you were more than an intellectual poser, I would expect you to rise above your bothered sensibilities and open the door to a respectful dialogue. Instead you continue to embody a style of uninquisitive, uninspired trolling that damages the reputation of commerce and communication on the internet.
You've lost your chance, Mr. Symonds. You could have found friends with good people and a future of compelling discussions. But instead, you suppose to fight sparklers with flamethrowers, when all you are doing is ruining a stranger's good time and interloping on someone else's in-joke. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Good luck,
Nels
Whoa...insults perpetuate more insults.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to search out people on the internet who disagree with me and call them idiots.
"Respectful dialogue", Nels ??!!
Re-read Greg's post, and then tell me he wishes to engage in "respectful dialogue".
It is perfectly clear Greg does not - "in-joke" or not. That's why I call him an "idiot" - and I'm not ashamed to say it.
Trolls, intellectual posers, etc more than welcome to have a respectful (or non-respectful) "without constraint" dialogue on Gatwick City of Ideas.
Obviously there's no chance here.
Dick Symonds,
I gave you a chance for a respectful dialogue. I gave you the chance to rephrase your ridiculously ineloquent and inflammatory comment. But you refused.
Off with you now, you emotional child.
Nels
From Dicky Willy,
"Emotional child" or not, Els, it is you who has refused to give any chance of dialogue - respectful or otherwise - especially with your own insults.
As to a "ridiculously ineloquent and inflammatory comment", perhaps you should direct your criticisms to "Greg" - or is that you, "Nels"?
Calling someone an "idiot" is a rather mild insult in comparison, don't you think ?
If you want to engage in any sort of intelligent dialogue - which I'm almost certain you don't - let's start by deciding what we mean by "EVIL".
You start first, Nels...or aren't you up to it ?!
I think Greg lost me when he wrote ::
...think about the most evil people that have ever lived and think of what those people have done. Think about Adolf Hitler...
C'mon, Chomsky is just a thinker, whether you agree with him or not.
Bandying around words like "Hitler", in comparison, is just plain lazy... and somewhat predictable.
Now, a measure of perspective from the author would be most welcome.
Tyger:
Sweet, sweety irony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUXG6031oL4
Irony indeed,
I didn't catch, from Chomsky's nuanced analogy, where he called Bush 41 Hitler?
And, may I point out, where did I defend Mr. Chomsky - his views or personal statements?
I've long given up arguing on the Internet. It isn't worth the time it takes.
However, I'll say a few things and let you guys argue all you want. Have fun!
1) My blog post was (obviously) in jest.
2) I do think Noam Chomsky is a bad guy who advocates evil/bad ideas. The only thing keeping him from the list of "most evil people ever" is that he isn't very influential.
3) I think ideas are important and I think you can make the list of "most evil people ever" just by advocating a set of ideas. If a person advocates evil/bad ideas and a great many people accept and act on those ideas, then you can make that list.
4) I do think Immanuel Kant is somewhere on that list of "most evil people ever". He advocated some horrible ideas and he was and continues to be very influential.
Thanks for the clarification, Greg.
As a Libertarian, I don't ascribe to everything Mr. Chomsky advocates, but at the same time, I tend to react to hyperbole... :o)
All the best.
Greg, you're an ignorantly dangerous and evil idiot.
That comment was (obviously) in jest.
What excellent phrase
Post a Comment