On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Blarne Flinkard wrote:

> > selohssa kaeps sdrawkcab eurt sti sey.
>
> [Supposedly, it's speech, not the written word that contains covert
> information.]
>
> > Art Bell is a twit.  You must be outa your mind to post that crap
> > here.  People like you, and that idiot John DiNardo, do more to make
> > the Left look like a bunch of idiots than the entire Republican party
> > could combined.
>
> I usually don't respond to ad hominem and psychotically off-topic comments
> and in a sense this response is no exception since it is not intended for
> the sober consideration of frank scott, jf noonan, or DDeBar (since I have
> some evidence that they aren't willing to participate in such a venture),
> but rather for those who may be observing them in astonishment as I am and
> for those who embrace the spirit of open and free inquiry.

I love it when people whine about ad hominem while they engage in it
themselves, but then, I'm a sucker for irony.  What is "psychotically"
off-topic about pointing out that loons on the left with either
conspiracy theories or pseudo-science make the rest of us look like
fools.  Do you enjoy those space alien stories from Art as well?

> For frank scott to imply that I'm an "asshole" and for DDeBar to concur
> for the simple fact that I pointed to a controversial development in
> linguistics in a neutral way belies some character imbalance. If someone
> finds David John Oates' claims bogus, well that's fine with me. I'd like
> to hear why you think so, especially if you've actually examined his
> claims. Presently, I'm reluctant to accept his claims as true because it
> appears he's inferring too much. But the sheer novelty of his claims may
> be triggering my resistance. I do accept, however, that well-designed
> experiments could dispell this concern.

It is pseudo-science of the kind people who think they know something
about a topic and then have a divine flash of inspiration.  It's the
sort of thing that anybody with a tab of decent blotter acid could
come up with on a Saturday afternoon.  And worth about as much.


> Despite what jf noonan may think, Oates and his alleged discovery of
> reverse speech has nothing to do with his politics, my politics, or anyone
> else's politics. It is nothing more than a controversial scientific claim
> and in that regard no different than say the scientific claims of Galileo,
> Newton, or your favorite local scientist working at your local university
> or in the garage next door. jf noonan's comments that I am somehow
> compromising the integrity of the political left are bizarre and
> completely nugatory. If you find reverse speech a threat to your politics,
> please reexamine your politics. They're broken. How and why Art Bell fell
> under attack is beyond me.

Yes, I suppose it would fall beyond you.  Art Bell specializes in
having fools and charlatans on his show.  Although the charter of this
list includes discussion of Chomsky's linguitic work, I've never seen
it discussed here.  All I see is politics discussed here.  The crap
you posted is not related Chomsky's work and is being championed by a
guy, Art Bell, that has a bizarre politics and view of the world.

Go forth and enjoy your "open", and emtpy mind.  Keep listening to Art
and check in after your next trip on a flying saucer.

--

Joseph Noonan
[log in to unmask]


"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr.  Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?'  I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
                -- Charles Babbage