Your posts have now decended to petty name calling and character assassination, becoming childish and sickening. I am surprised Paul hasn’t shut you down days ago.

You really are full of yourself.

I’m glad you realize it is time you buggered off.

Good bye

“Elitist Boring Bourgeoisie Leftist.” I don’t even know what that means, but I do know that you just mugged, beat and brutalized the English language there. You do realize that between the two of us, there’s one who seeks the destruction of the bourgeois class and all structures of authority upon which elites are created and there’s another who opposes the destruction of the bourgeoisie and structures of authority. Guess which one I am?

I see that you’ve completely run out of material with which to criticize me. If you’re going to claim that I’m a “second rate hack”, then that’s fine. I’ve been called far worse by far better men than you. But usually if somebody’s going to say an argument is second rate hackery, they provide, you know, a reason for this. Did I make a logical fallacy somewhere in my argument? Were my case studies inaccurate?

You then say that I’m “censoring” Brown by producing selected quotes from his paper. I don’t even know what that means, but now you’re really reaching hard to desperately find fault with anything. If I quoted the whole thing, a) I’d have to type the whole thing up and b) I’d potentially have a copyright suit to deal with because I would have reproduced the article in its entirety. That’s why I gave the full citation of the article so that you can go and read it in its entirety yourself and do some research on your own…. Oops, what am I saying, I forgot who I’m talking to. OF COURSE you’re not going to do some research on your own. Silly me. My fault.

You don’t know what my last paragraph is about? I found that inconceivable, but here goes. And I quote you, “Normally, I don’t let these sort of conservative anti-Chomsky attacks anger up the blood so much when I encounter them on the internet, but this sort of argument bothers me immensely when the author is able to get his or her work accepted by a peer-reviewed academic publication when even the most basic standards of decency show that this work is both fallacious and an ad hominem against another academic.”

My personal point about that statement is this. I disagree agree with you on much and that is the very reason I read you. I read you because I want to understand you. I want to understand you because I want to destroy you. How can I learn enough about you to destroy you if you are constantly talking about people who are ostensibly also against your types? Instead of informing me about Brown entertain me with something I don’t already know about Chomsky.

Upon further study of your post what I find most alarming about you is how you rant about Brown and then so casually corrupt yourself. And I quote you again, “Thus, I have decided to reproduce selected quotes from this paper by Chris Brown.” Selected quotes? Hello, censorship.

As for the last paragraph of your comment, I don’t even know what that means or what you’re getting at, so I won’t attempt a reply.

About this academic research project/essay. Why do you always insist on those silly titles? Did you actually turn this paper in as part of your graduate work with that title or did you change the title for your blog? Even so all your doing is marginalizing yourself with those cutsy titles and alienating people that may otherwise be on the fence. You also give people like Max legitimate pinko foolishness to laugh about while watching NASCAR and drinking canned beer. In your other post you say that this academic research project/essay is not properly formatted and is still in its draft sage. I hope so because it is in serious need of a grammar/spell check. Trust me I know what I am talking about. In retrospect I have come across my own mistakes in my posts, but that is because I don’t have the benefit of a word processor while on your blog so don’t fault me for that.

Lastly, I wonder why your posts seem to always come from the negative perspective of the victim crying about all of the meanies out to get him and his friends. Rather than using Chomsky as an excuse to go after Brown wouldn’t it be more constructive to simply talk about something good that Chomsky has done?

Capitalist ingenuity at its finest.

“Ever learning and never coming to the knoledge of the truth.”