vimperator/pentadactyl is what taught me vim.
also, vimgolf.com is apparently good too.
45 karma · joined September 25, 2010
also, vimgolf.com is apparently good too.
being able to search your bookmarks, history, and even your files on you hard drive QUICKLY and from within the browser is just a completely different world.
and that's just one example....
i'm missing the references here. see my other post as to what you perceive i'm not addressing.
what were the childish fantasies and insults you are referring to?
thnx for more mud slinging about calling this a "troll account" just because i disagree with you or am trying to shed some light to your original question. it really adds to the conversation. and i agree, childish insults and fantasies should best be ignored.
re: propaganda. if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. which term you should have used is a concern for you, not for me. if you aren't using the correct terms to convey what you are trying to say then there is no way i can help you choose the appropriate words since i have no idea what it is you mean. basically, operate on the safe side of things and don't throw labels around if you're unsure about what you're trying to convey.
chomsky is participating in a "non-serious argument"? are you serious? and he is trying to "influence opinions"? again, really? do you seriously stand by these accusations? if so, you'll have to provide evidence for these accusations. otherwise you're participating in further hyberbole.
sudan is a 1000 times worse. yes, even chomsky said that in the vids (if not a million times worse). so you agree with chomsky. no one is arguing that.
you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. how can you come up with a correlation between chomsky talking about something and having saved sudanese lives??? how can he have saved one life, or 1 million? as mentioned, chomsky made comments in the past about the bombing of an american pharmaceutical company. how many 1000s of sudanese lives did those comments save? i believe you're overestimating chomsky's influence on the political arena here.
and further, how do you know chomsky has not discussed sudan? my initial take (why this thread started) is that you were not aware that chomsky discussed anything but israel. we've already established that is a false conclusion (as long as you don't perform the experiment, you can pretend every conclusion is true).
re: quoting my reference. i'm unclear what you're referring to here. what reference of mine are you quoting? i must have missed the point (therefore not provide a comment on it)?
re: "all left wingers" and hyperbole. by "all left wingers" i interpreted that as not just "all left wingers in sweden" (i have no idea what the left in sweden is like, probably in a similar way that you might not have an idea as to what the left is like in other countries). and it might appear to you that ALL demonize israel. if you're willing to admit that you're overgeneralizing then i'm willing to retract my claim of hyperbole.
i had no idea you were limiting your comments to a subset of people you were referring to. i agree with "wtf", because my comment was a reflection of my reaction to your overgeneralization. the statement was intended to be ironic.
re: "no one knows whether it's true or not" about sadat and the plo. i'm missing something here. where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky.
i wasn't ignoring anything. i stated i wasn't clear about the rest of your points were in regards to (e.g. i didn't understand what you meant by "existential threats"). i'm asking you to clarify them if you can.
unsure what you mean by "israel is better than most" as well. i'm happy to touch any subject (i can't speak for chomsky tho). i just don't understand the subject you want me to touch.
which arguments did i not address and i'll be happy to address them? i think you're being VERY disingenuous here by saying i'm avoiding anything. you don't know me well enough at all to sling mud my way. that's not cool.
keep in mind, i'm NOT arguing here, just having a discussion and hoping everyone is clarifying what they are interpreting. if i'm wrong or misinformed, i'd GLADLY revise my statements or opinions. it's part of the learning process. hopefully you, and everyone else, would do the same when presented with new perspectives on the way they view life.
what did i misquote of chomsky from the vid? (you're going to have to be much clearer in your claims/accusations since this conversation is getting pretty nested.)
again, i'm not a fan of chomsky. i'm not sure what else you want me to say about that. the discussion began with "chomsky focuses on israel and ignores everything else", to which i replied that it was a good observation, and provided a video which addresses that concern.
a def'n of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (dictionary.com). is this what you're claiming chomsky is doing? if so, what is the info he is spreading and whom is he trying to harm? i believe such a claim is VERY strong, and would fall under the area of mudslinging. it's a popular fox news tactic too.
A) he does NOT criticize israel more than other places (he says something similar many times elsewhere in the 3 vids). he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act. thus, if the situation in sudan is not a byproduct of usa policy, he feels the moral obligation is not as strong as in places where the usa has directly affected a region (middle east, south america, vietnam, etc.).
are you assuming that chomsky has said nothing about sudan?
i'm unsure what your critique here is. chomsky is on the record about making comments on (quick, abridged list): serbia/yugoslavia, venezuala, mexico, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, russia, germany, iraq, iran, syria, israel, palestine, lebanon, cuba, canada, usa, china, phillipines, korea, japan, south africa, haiti, honduras, east timor, tibet, india, pakistan, libya, turkey, indonesia, brazil, egypt, jordan, georgia, colombia, cambodia, australia, etc.
and yes, chomsky has made commentary regarding sudan. further, it is consistent with what i mentioned above: he has public comments about the american bombing of a pharmaceutical company in sudan. see here at 0:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqPwqwoOcA lots more info here: http://www2.math.uic.edu/~takata/WorldTradeCenter/WTC_Articl...
another factor: chomsky is american. thus is it "propaganda" if the majority of his writings concern america? isn't this acceptable? the same concern with the fact that he's jewish and has personal ties to israel. thus why is it considered "problematic" if the majority of his words and thoughts concern the 2 things he is a part of? (he even mentions this at 2:00).
further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. i'm going to ignore that comment. i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole where the demonization of anyone that disagrees with them as more or less standard.
B) by "existential threat", are you referring to "israel's right to exist is questioned"?
i'll also ignore the "sadat and plo" unicorns-are-real statement, since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not.
i'm unsure what the rest of your points are referring to. and i don't see how they support your "chomsky writes propaganda" thesis. it's a very weak thesis (i'm being generous). propaganda involves the spreading of misinformation ("lies" if you will). the only point you've brought up is that "chomsky focuses too much on israel" (he doesn't) and "ignores sudan" (again, wrong). i fail to see the connection to propaganda.
did you watch the vids i linked to? i placed them there because they refute/clarify all the claims/mischaracterizations you mentioned and linked to.
i can't force you to watch them, but i'll help you out even further:
1) in vid 1, at 4:15 in vid 1, at 3:30 in vid 2, at 0:45
2) and 3) in vid 2, at 2:55
enjoy
you say "Also, I noted it is easy to give examples where other countries are much worse, without Chomsky or anyone else caring". if you watch the videos i mentioned you will get the reply you are looking for to this question and see that this claim is completely false.
thus also false is the claim of propaganda. all i can say is "watch the vids", and until you do there is no point in constantly repeating the above talking point since it's CLEARLY addressed and refuted in the vids mentioned.
again, now you're getting into the "hidden intentions" thing which is completely irrelevant with regards to my not being a fan of chomsky. all i can say is that the world is a complex place, some things i agree with and some things i disagree with. for me to say i'm a "fan" of chomsky is probably as (in)valid as saying that i'm "not a fan" of chomsky.
it's similar to what i mentioned above about attacking hidden motivations (i.e. discussing everything but the topics and matters at hand). the anti-semitic counsel is something important to investigate, but hopefully it's not being used to detract or deflect attention from the contents of the leaked documents.
chomsky is being pretty honest, while the interviewers (etc.) and the people (mis)characterizing him are being as disingenuous as one can possibly be. again, refer to the vids (the 3rd part is most relevant, plus it's only 7 mins long). would explain MANY of your questions and comments.
re: US foreign policy, israel, bangladesh, etc. see the vids i posted elsewhere in this thread here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2051777 you're right about all your comments and questions the main issue of confusion i find is that the conversation is all about "chomsky" or "chomsky's hidden intentions", rather than the actual facts/policies it's like wikileaks/assange deja-vu all over again....
full disclosure: i use emacs (with vimpulse). and i also try to use vim whenever possible as well. and if you want your mind blown by vim: http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/11/screencast-custom-vim-re...
all these things are toys and distractions. it's up to you to choose what to follow: the false prophets or the real ones. the issues that actually matter or the ones that actually don't.
the main thing i have found is that it all feels impossible/insurmountable in the beginning. but as with anything else, it gets much easier over time as long as the work and effort is there. e.g. "programming is too hard". but in reality EVERYTHING is "too hard". nothing is easy. nothing is black and white. etc.
disclosure++: i'm less a fan of lies or mudslinging or false conclusions or character assassinations
with that said....
chomsky doesn't "cheerlead for hezbollah"
chomsky doesn't deny the holocaust
chomsky isn't an anti-semite
the "criticisms" are similar to what the interviewer here keeps repeating (and constantly ignoring his answers):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM7IFBIfQ1M
i prefer the term "intelligence" rather than intellectual. any idiot (every one of us) operates on intelligence, tho it might not be well developed for all domains.
i'm unsure if intellectualism was historically provided by academia tho. nor whether that matters. intelligence is everywhere, and can manifest itself in any place and medium.
this has a minimum grace of style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJb3ka_ZNtM
Or a treat.
So which is the original reference to: "edison the co." or "thomas edison"?
Edit: "edison" wasn't even mentioned in the original post???
"Google" is not a person/individual. I'd definitely place _why, brad fitzpatrick, and zed shaw as POSSIBLE equals to einstein and tesla, but that would still be a stretch...