From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 09:10:23 MDT
FrontPage is the vehicle for David Horowitz's "Center for the Study of the
Popular Culture". Horowitz is a former radical left winger/communist who was
disillusioned by what he saw as the betrayal by the left wing of virtually
everything he stood for, including the civil rights struggle. He has now
swung right over to the other side of the political spectrum and is a fairly
influential right wing figure.
He is brilliant if occasionally extreme ( the old more royal than the king
thing).
Regards
Jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dylan Sunter" <dylan.sunter@fisystem.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:55 PM
Subject: virus: Joe Dees links.
> As many of you will have noticed, Joe has recently been sending URL's
round
> instead of full C+P text. Firstly, this is much better, and im sure Im not
> the only one to agree that its much easier to deal with.
>
> However, after seeing no fewer than nine different URLS pointing to
articles
> on the www.frontpagemag.com site, I decided to visit to see what it was
all
> about.
>
> Granted, Im not an American, and I am therefore prob not the best
> commentator on US politics, but this seems like its politics is slightly
> right of Atilla the Hun.
>
> It is incredibly anti-communist (note the bit about the communist
> vampires...thats ace) and portrays liberals (interchangable with the word
> Democrat) as ineffective talkers who are a pariah to good moral american
> society.
>
> According to the review of one book sold on the site "The good part of
being
> a Democrat is that you can commit crimes, sell out your base, bomb
> foreigners, and rape women, and the Democratic faithful will still think
> you`re the greatest"
>
> Sounds like a tabloid press review to me.
>
> If this isnt a Republican Party sponsored e-mag, then Im Pope Gregory
XIII.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of joedees@bellsouth.net
> Sent: 11 September 2002 06:37
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re:virus: Noam Chomsky's Citations
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2002 at 23:02, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> >
> > [rhinoceros -1]
> >
> > From MIT Tech Talk Wednesday April 15, 1992 page 3
> >
> > Chomsky is Citation Champ
> >
> > Many are the authors who may wonder is anyone is paying attention to
> > what they write. Professor Noam Chomsky, MIT's preeminent linguistics
> > authority, doesn't have that problem. Recent research on citations in
> > three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of
> > the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years.
> >
> > In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index
> > between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that
> > period and the eight most cited source overall -- just behind famed
> > psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.
> >
> > Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten
> > cited sources during the period were:
> >
> > 1. Marx
> > 2. Lenin
> > 3. Shakespeare
> > 4. Aristotle
> > 5. The Bible
> > 6. Plato
> > 7. Freud
> > 8. Chomsky
> > 9. Hegel
> > 10. Cicero.
> >
> > But that isn't all. From 1972 to 1992, Professor Chomsky was cited
> > 7,449 times in the Social Science Citation Index -- likely the
> > greatest number of times for a living person there as well, although
> > the research into those numbers isn't complete. In addition, from
> > 1974 to 1992 he was cited 1,619 times in the Science Citation Index.
> >
> > "What it means is that he is very widely read across disciplines and
> > that his work is used by researchers across disciplines," said Theresa
> > A. Tobin, the Humanities Librarian who checked the numbers. "In
> > fact," she added, "it seems that you can't write a paper without
> > citing Noam Chomsky."
> >
> >
> >
> > [Joe Dees 1]
> > 1) Ad Populam is a 2500-year-old Greek logical fallacy, so his
> > plethora of citations contribute not one whit to his credibility on
> > this issue.
> >
> > 2) Many of his citations have to do with both his more legitimate
> > (although hotly disputed and currently out of favor) academic work and
> > his other anti-american prounciamentoes.
> >
> > 3) It would be interesting to analyze his post-9/11 citations to
> > discover what percentage of them were disparaging or refutational; my
> > guess is that the percentage would be high.
> >
> >
> >
> > [rhinoceros 2]
> > Of course, the number of citations does not prove someone right. This
> > becomes obvious by taking a look at the other names mentioned. It just
> > proves that what Chomsky had to say was considered very important for
> > Arts and Humanities papers accross disciplines.
> >
> > Quote:
> > "What it means is that he is very widely read across disciplines and
> > that his work is used by researchers across disciplines," said Theresa
> > A. Tobin, the Humanities Librarian who checked the numbers. "In
> > fact," she added, "it seems that you can't write a paper without
> > citing Noam Chomsky."
> >
> And more than not, lately, in counterpoint. He has really shit in his
> white hat on this one (a US Navy term meaning a stain that cannot be
> cleaned), and as a result, his star is progressively fading among the
> real (as opposed to the trendy wannabe) cognoscentious inteligentsia.
> >
> > ----
> > This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> > Church of Virus BBS.
> > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> > id=26486>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT