failure

Not only that, but the Google thing is VERY old news. It was there last year, I'm sure.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Wed,

Will you defer this until the Third Edition is published? It is, after all, almost as eagerly awaited as the next Harry Potter.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Winfield Hill wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Wed, 14 Sep 2005:

It can hardly be more 'out' than it is now. I suspect the WH has decided to ignore it because they would look ridiculous if they took any action. (That's why you don't get killed by a thunderbolt if you swear by, or even at, your god.)

Actually, he's not. But you need treatment for your brain-lock before you will be able to see that you're wrong.

Good Luck! Rich

Yes, actually, they generally go hand-in-hand, so to speak. Thompson is an idiot _and_ a redneck, and is so deeply in brain-lock that he thinks it even makes _sense_ to accuse someone else of being a "bluenose". I seriously doubt if he even knows what it means, given the context I see him use it in. Historically, the bluenoses have been the censors, i.e., the anti-freedom crowd that the neocons have become.

Thanks! Rich

When I first heard about it, the story was that soemone(s) had put lots of sites on the web, in which every instance of the f-word was a hyperlink (minus any indicative formatting, of course) to the WH site. Apart from the embarrassment of the WH having to notice it at all, the job of tracking down all the links was considered far too difficult to be worthwhile.

We can alternate Bushes and Clintons indefinitely.

John

He did get a well-deserved Nobel in Chemistry. And anybody who survives to 93 has got every right to be kooky.

John

Sheesh!

It's called a "Google Bomb" or something similar is it not ?

Google themselves can't ( easily ) do anything about it.

Graham

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Wed,

You think kid-brother will win next time? (;-)

You wish! Does it work the other way? Eight years of Bush between each Clinton?

I read in sci.electronics.design that snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Wed, 14 Sep 2005:

Some people in that field would put him closer to Bishop Berkeley.

Chomsky's contributions to linguistics make an extraordinary amount of sense. If you don't think that he has sufficient skill to accomplish anything useful, you are totally out of touch with the linguistic and psycholinguistic community.

Chomsky's political opinions are more controversial, but few would describe them as stunningly boring. A number of his books are available on Amazon, which suggests that your opinion is not widely shared.

I found his "Hegemony or Survival" (ISBN 1-74114-162-1) quite fascinating, if rather densely written, and checking out Amazon just now inspired me to order his book "Anarchism".

---------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I've not heard that proposition before. Is the comparison based on Berkeley's work in mathematics, optics or philosophy, or Berkeley's opinions about the conversion and baptism of slaves?

----------------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The second Nobel was a Peace Prize, and John presumably thinks that it was not well-deserved, since it honoured his contribution to the 1963 Test Ban Treaty.

---------------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You presume a lot, base on zero data.

John

No argument there!

Margaret Mead had a similar burst of popularity, until people eventually figured out that she was totally wrong. I met her once, a gracious and charming old lady who walked with an interesting and lethal-looking cane.

John

He got 2 Nobels.