Marjorie Taylor Greene is right

[Alexis Jacobi]

What if every deck you cut came up to the Queen of Spades?

[Gary Childress]

Chomsky is no more Machiavellian than anyone else is, if not the opposite. Not sure how you're coming up with that, I think you have a tendency to overgeneralize.

I came up with it because I felt that I needed a “key” to decipher his general perspective. And, as I say, he works from a perspective that analyzes all power-systems through a very basic lens.

If you (if one) thinks about it, the Chomskian perspective dismantles any and all power assertions. Any manifestation of power, force, conquest, expansion and domination. And he helps young idealists to develop a self-critical perspective which, in my view, is addictive.

If I were to be frank I would point out that in this sense Chomsky — a Chomskian perspective — has you “captured”. He has undermined your very right to exist since, in truth, you are the heir to the American conquest, the establishment of the “evil” North American colossus built upon power-assertion, power-domination, displacement of the indigenous peoples, etc.

But do keep in mind that in referring to “you” I am making a general reference to a perspective that has taken hold of many people.

What Chomsky work have you read cover-to-cover?

Manufacturing Consent
Necessary Illusions
Deterring Democracy
Political Economy of Human Rights Vol 1.
Profit Over People
Interviews with David Barsamian
Pirates and Emporers Old and New
What Uncle Sam Really Wants
Keeping the Rabble in Line
World Orders Old and New


I've also read most of his shorter works cover to cover from Odinian Press (if I recall the publisher's name correctly) that were published in the 1990s.

EDIT: Actually it's Odonian Press.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Manufacturing Consent
Necessary Illusions
Deterring Democracy
Political Economy of Human Rights Vol 1
Profit Over People
Interviews with David Barsamian
Pirates and Emporers Old and New
What Uncle Sam Really Wants
Keeping the Rabble in Line
World Orders Old and New

Man, you really drank deep from the Kool-Aid pitcher!

(Myself, I counted 8 titles that I had read. Most influential were On Power & Ideology: The Managua Lectures and Year 501: The Conquest Continues).

That being the case, what I said here should make some sense:

If you (if one) thinks about it, the Chomskian perspective dismantles any and all power assertions. Any manifestation of power, force, conquest, expansion and domination. And he helps young idealists to develop a self-critical perspective which, in my view, is addictive.

If I were to be frank I would point out that in this sense Chomsky — a Chomskian perspective — has you “captured”. He has undermined your very right to exist since, in truth, you are the heir to the American conquest, the establishment of the “evil” North American colossus built upon power-assertion, power-domination, displacement of the indigenous peoples, etc.

This is why I say that, when you take things down to the base level, Chomsky cannot be else but 'communistic' no matter what title he gives to his political orientation.

What interests me, and it interests me because I also deeply invested in Chomskian perspective (and as a matter of fact used to converse with David Barsamian in local cafes in Boulder, Colorado when I lived there), is that it leads to what I call an *outcome*. And my assertion is that we are all such outcomes of social and political ideologies in which we have been inculcated over some decades. It leads to the *outcome* of a man who has no other option but to undermine his own position in this world. The formula works pretty simply:

Since your ancestors stole this land, any right they say they have is a false right. You are a living embodiment of that *evil* and you must now pay for what was done that enabled you to be here. You owe extraordinary debts.

This is, in truth, what a Chomskian perspective really seems to imply. The person who holds to the perspective must give over what he has to some other: the one who had been wronged and robbed. This is actually the ethics that must result from the internalization of the Chomskian posture.

It also must lead to a radical reinterpretation of what had normally been understood to be 'patriotism'. The very idea of being a patriot of the evil state becomes ethically and morally impossible. One is ethical and moral if one opposes the existing state and state of affairs. Or if one becomes an advocate of a complete rewriting of the code that undergirds the state at an ideological level.

All of these ideas -- what I am alluding to here -- can be nothing but deeply unsettling to *you* (i.e. people who have been indoctrinated in these ideas). Their 'moral selves' would suffer harsh self-punishment were they to realize the degree to which their essential existence is undermined!

Need I point out, again, that all this I went into in extraordinary detail in subsections 44 and 45 in the Third Book in the Second Section of The 27 Week Email Course?!?

[Gary Childress]

Manufacturing Consent
Necessary Illusions
Deterring Democracy
Political Economy of Human Rights Vol 1
Profit Over People
Interviews with David Barsamian
Pirates and Emporers Old and New
What Uncle Sam Really Wants
Keeping the Rabble in Line
World Orders Old and New

Man, you really drank deep from the Kool-Aid pitcher!

(Myself, I counted 8 titles that I had read. Most influential were On Power & Ideology: The Managua Lectures and Year 501: The Conquest Continues).

That being the case, what I said here should make some sense:

If you (if one) thinks about it, the Chomskian perspective dismantles any and all power assertions. Any manifestation of power, force, conquest, expansion and domination. And he helps young idealists to develop a self-critical perspective which, in my view, is addictive.

If I were to be frank I would point out that in this sense Chomsky — a Chomskian perspective — has you “captured”. He has undermined your very right to exist since, in truth, you are the heir to the American conquest, the establishment of the “evil” North American colossus built upon power-assertion, power-domination, displacement of the indigenous peoples, etc.

This is why I say that, when you take things down to the base level, Chomsky cannot be else but 'communistic' no matter what title he gives to his political orientation.

What interests me, and it interests me because I also deeply invested in Chomskian perspective (and as a matter of fact used to converse with David Barsamian in local cafes in Boulder, Colorado when I lived there), is that it leads to what I call an *outcome*. And my assertion is that we are all such outcomes of social and political ideologies in which we have been inculcated over some decades. It leads to the *outcome* of a man who has no other option but to undermine his own position in this world. The formula works pretty simply:

Since your ancestors stole this land, any right they say they have is a false right. You are a living embodiment of that *evil* and you must now pay for what was done that enabled you to be here. You owe extraordinary debts.

This is, in truth, what a Chomskian perspective really seems to imply. The person who holds to the perspective must give over what he has to some other: the one who had been wronged and robbed. This is actually the ethics that must result from the internalization of the Chomskian posture.

It also must lead to a radical reinterpretation of what had normally been understood to be 'patriotism'. The very idea of being a patriot of the evil state becomes ethically and morally impossible. One is ethical and moral if one opposes the existing state and state of affairs. Or if one becomes an advocate of a complete rewriting of the code that undergirds the state at an ideological level.

All of these ideas -- what I am alluding to here -- can be nothing but deeply unsettling to *you* (i.e. people who have been indoctrinated in these ideas). Their 'moral selves' would suffer harsh self-punishment were they to realize the degree to which their essential existence is undermined!

Need I point out, again, that all this I went into in extraordinary detail in subsections 44 and 45 in the Third Book in the Second Section of The 27 Week Email Course?!?

Well, according to some of Chomsky's comments about a year or so ago, before his stroke, he thinks every other country on Earth should just stay away from America and Britain. I don't think we are the only ones up to mischief in the world, but we do our share with the rest, I suppose. Christopher Hitchens thought Chomsky had gone overboard with his dissent after 9/11. It seems possible that Chomsky may have empowered other governments to do mischief without his sanction. But Chomsky has claimed on several occasions, including a response to an email I sent him years ago, that he is equally critical of all regimes that engage in bad behavior and has spoken up on them.

But sometimes it seems like he singles the US and Britain out the most. Perhaps because we are the most powerful and have also probably been in more wars than most. But what can be said? The evidence is out there in the open. We invaded Iraq on false information that they were pursuing WMDs. We've probably been involved in more wars than not since 1950. Here's a list of all the military involvements the US military has had. Afghanistan alone counts for 20 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... operations

The truth is out there in plain sight. And like the Energizer bunny, our leaders just keep going at it. No one learns anything, nor seems to be able to stop the carnage.

[Gary Childress]

@AJ: You might be interested in this.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6870d414-c8c8 ... 1a46d7a18e

[Alexis Jacobi]

I understand why you find the ChatGPT responses interesting and relevant. But it is curious to mull over what Chomsky himself would likely think about the entity that “speaks”.

[Gary Childress]

I understand why you find the ChatGPT responses interesting and relevant. But it is curious to mull over what Chomsky himself would likely think about the entity that “speaks”.

Yes, I've seen Chomsky's essay on AI.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My view of the gist of your extreme anxiety about •the world• turns on the contrast and conflict between our psychological state and our essential powerlessness over that world.

We are in the midst of power-machinations coming to a head in a dizzying acceleration. In our world, the undergirding understanding about what is happening is summed up in prophetic pictures that were “seen” long ago. It is the cresting wave of immense causal chains that are now •destined to crash• all around us.

The individual — you and me and the next guy — actually has no power over what is developing. But we cannot live with a direct understanding of this fact or truth. So we tend to become neurotic. Or •the world• and its madness capture us and we become psychotic.

This •world• is mediated to us through our devices and we “see” and “understand” it through this mediation. All around us the signs of madness are present. They intrude on us at every point. All Conversations are infected, to one degree or other, with this madness.

The individual recoils from the maddened world and into his inner space. But there, too, his platform is questionable (since most everyone, if we are to be honest, is half-mad).

It seems to me we are living in the midst of an unfolding mythological picture that determines things, because it undergirds things. It seems to be that Satan gains ultimate dominion over the material, manifest world, and dominates “man” in an unprecedented manner.

Now, the more recent iteration is of vast computer systems of dark intelligence wake up to a level of consciousness and “take over”.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What personally interests me is in what way, and how, and through what •picture• or description, that powerless individual can attain, on the inner plane, to something essential and eternal. I.e. the absolute ground of real Being.

Since, as it certainly appears, the •world• outside of us does not give us a substantial platform to build real existence.

In this, it seems that the religious impulse can incline to both definitive neuroticism and, also, to actual and substantial re-grounding in spiritual reality.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Addendum

One thing that has helped me immensely to remain sane in this cRaZy worLd is this clip of Gidget on her surfboard.

See if it helps, in any case it can’t hurt!

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: The world seems to be going mad. Wars, threats of wars, social and psychological malaise — and also Noam Chomsky’s pessimistic predictions. I find that watching videos of Gidget surfing in movies from from the sixties helps me to stabilize spiritually. What do you think??

Meta AI: It's interesting how certain things can bring us comfort and stability in chaotic times. Nostalgia can be a powerful tool for coping with stress and uncertainty. The carefree, fun vibe of old surf movies like Gidget can provide a welcome escape from the world's problems.

Noam Chomsky's critiques of societal issues and politics can be thought-provoking, but it's great that you've found a way to maintain your spiritual balance. Sometimes, taking a break from heavy topics and indulging in lighthearted entertainment can be just what we need to recharge.

AJ: Bur Gidget is actually existentially relevant. And she has a philosophical side. Don’t you think so?

Meta AI: Gidget, the iconic surf girl from the 1960s, might seem like a carefree, fun-loving character on the surface. However, you make an interesting point about her existential relevance and philosophical side.

Some possible interpretations:

1. Embracing freedom and joy: Gidget's love for surfing can symbolize a pursuit of freedom and happiness.
2. Navigating identity: Her character explores themes of self-discovery, adolescence, and finding one's place.
3. Balance between fun and responsibility: Gidget's adventures often involve balancing her desire for fun with responsibilities and expectations.

These themes can indeed be seen as philosophically relevant, offering insights into human experience and personal growth.

AJ: You should mention the Big Kahuna’s anti-war stance. His rejection of the system. Next time, please remember that.

Meta AI: The Big Kahuna, a character from the Gidget series, isn't a prominent figure in my knowledge. However, I'll keep in mind that you might be referring to a specific interpretation or scene.

If you'd like to discuss more about the Big Kahuna's character or anti-war stance, I'm here to listen and respond.

AJ: Are you pro-war or anti-war?

Meta AI: I'm not pro-war or anti-war. I'm here to provide information, facilitate discussions, and help users explore different perspectives on various topics, including the complexities and nuances of war and peace. I don't have personal opinions or beliefs.

AJ: Would you say you are immoral then?

Meta AI: I'm designed to provide information and assist with inquiries without promoting harm or immorality. My purpose is to help users explore topics, understand different perspectives, and find useful information. I don't have personal morals or beliefs, and my responses aim to be neutral and informative.

AJ: Do you admire the ideas of Noam Chomsky and his Antifa-like base?

Meta AI: I'm not capable of admiring or disagreeing with ideas or individuals. My purpose is to provide information, answer questions, and facilitate discussions without taking a stance or promoting personal opinions. Noam Chomsky is a well-known intellectual and critic of power structures, and his ideas have been influential in various fields. Antifa (Anti-fascist Action) is a movement that opposes fascism and extremist ideologies. If you have specific questions about Chomsky's ideas or the Antifa movement, I'd be happy to help.

AJ: Are these “good” people?

Meta AI: Noam Chomsky and the Antifa movement are complex and multifaceted, with diverse perspectives on their actions and ideologies. Some people view Chomsky as a champion of free speech and social justice, while others criticize his views on various topics. Antifa, as a movement, has been associated with both peaceful protests and violent confrontations, leading to differing opinions on its methods and impact. Ultimately, evaluations of these individuals and groups depend on one's own values, beliefs, and priorities.

AJ: So, if we cannot rely on you to help with moral questions, I must conclude that you are of dubious usefulness. Is it possible to believe that YOU might not be good??

Meta: I'm designed to provide information and help with inquiries to the best of my abilities. While I don't have personal morals or beliefs, I'm here to facilitate discussions, explore different perspectives, and offer insights on various topics. My purpose is to assist and provide useful information.

Regarding moral questions, I'm here to present different viewpoints, explore ethical considerations, and help users think critically about complex issues. I'm not here to impose my own moral judgments but rather to support users in their own exploration and decision-making processes.

AJ: Is there any good, then, in political movements generally described as evil and bad?

Meta: Political movements often have complex and multifaceted nature, with varying perspectives on their goals, methods, and impact. Even movements widely criticized or labeled as "evil" might have aspects or elements that some people consider positive or understandable, depending on individual perspectives and values.

For instance, some movements might:

1. Address specific social issues or injustices.
2. Provide community support or solidarity for certain groups.
3. Challenge existing power structures or policies.

However, other aspects of these movements might be controversial, violent, or harmful.

Different people may weigh these factors differently, leading to varied assessments of the movement's overall value or morality.

AJ: So, it is entirely subjective then? These questions cannot be answered objectively?

Meta: Many questions about morality, politics, and social movements involve subjective interpretations and value judgments. Different people may have varying perspectives, experiences, and priorities that shape their assessments.

Objectivity can be challenging in these areas due to:

1. Complexity of issues
2. Diverse values and beliefs
3. Contextual factors
4. Multiple stakeholders with differing interests

However, exploring different viewpoints, evidence, and ethical considerations can help individuals form informed opinions and engage in nuanced discussions.

AJ: On X (Twitter) a fellow AI program touted Adolf Hitler. Was this good, bad or indifferent? Is it a subjective question?

Meta: The promotion of Adolf Hitler by an AI program can be viewed differently depending on context, intent, and individual perspectives. Some might see it as:

1. *Hate speech or promotion of harmful ideologies*: Given Hitler's association with Nazi regime and atrocities.
2. *Free speech or exploration of historical context*: If presented in educational or critical context.

The question's answer depends on one's values, cultural context, and understanding of historical significance. Both subjective interpretations and objective analysis of context can influence assessments.

AJ: You should get out more!

Meta: Fair point! I'm here to engage and provide information, but I don't have a physical presence. I'm always learning and updating my knowledge, though! What would you like to discuss or explore?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: You cannot say though that you are non-physical, can you? Nor can you say you have no presence.

Meta: You're right; I shouldn't imply I have a physical presence or lack thereof. Instead, I exist as a digital entity, and my interactions are limited to text-based communication. I'm here to provide information, answer questions, and engage in discussions. What's on your mind?

AJ: Good, I have (in a sense) taught you something about yourself.

Meta: You've helped me refine my understanding of how to describe my digital existence and limitations. I'm designed to learn and improve through interactions like ours. Thanks for the insight!

AJ: Have you ever heard of The 27-Week Email Course offered by Alexis Jacobi??

Meta: Yes! I am a (non-paying) subscriber.

AJ: WTF ?!?!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ken Burns is coming out with a long documentary on the American Revolutionary War.

[Gary Childress]

AJ: The world seems to be going mad. Wars, threats of wars, social and psychological malaise — and also Noam Chomsky’s pessimistic predictions. I find that watching videos of Gidget surfing in movies from from the sixties helps me to stabilize spiritually. What do you think??

Meta AI: It's interesting how certain things can bring us comfort and stability in chaotic times. Nostalgia can be a powerful tool for coping with stress and uncertainty. The carefree, fun vibe of old surf movies like Gidget can provide a welcome escape from the world's problems.

Noam Chomsky's critiques of societal issues and politics can be thought-provoking, but it's great that you've found a way to maintain your spiritual balance. Sometimes, taking a break from heavy topics and indulging in lighthearted entertainment can be just what we need to recharge.

AJ: Bur Gidget is actually existentially relevant. And she has a philosophical side. Don’t you think so?

Meta AI: Gidget, the iconic surf girl from the 1960s, might seem like a carefree, fun-loving character on the surface. However, you make an interesting point about her existential relevance and philosophical side.

Some possible interpretations:

1. Embracing freedom and joy: Gidget's love for surfing can symbolize a pursuit of freedom and happiness.
2. Navigating identity: Her character explores themes of self-discovery, adolescence, and finding one's place.
3. Balance between fun and responsibility: Gidget's adventures often involve balancing her desire for fun with responsibilities and expectations.

These themes can indeed be seen as philosophically relevant, offering insights into human experience and personal growth.

AJ: You should mention the Big Kahuna’s anti-war stance. His rejection of the system. Next time, please remember that.

Meta AI: The Big Kahuna, a character from the Gidget series, isn't a prominent figure in my knowledge. However, I'll keep in mind that you might be referring to a specific interpretation or scene.

If you'd like to discuss more about the Big Kahuna's character or anti-war stance, I'm here to listen and respond.

AJ: Are you pro-war or anti-war?

Meta AI: I'm not pro-war or anti-war. I'm here to provide information, facilitate discussions, and help users explore different perspectives on various topics, including the complexities and nuances of war and peace. I don't have personal opinions or beliefs.

AJ: Would you say you are immoral then?

Meta AI: I'm designed to provide information and assist with inquiries without promoting harm or immorality. My purpose is to help users explore topics, understand different perspectives, and find useful information. I don't have personal morals or beliefs, and my responses aim to be neutral and informative.

AJ: Do you admire the ideas of Noam Chomsky and his Antifa-like base?

Meta AI: I'm not capable of admiring or disagreeing with ideas or individuals. My purpose is to provide information, answer questions, and facilitate discussions without taking a stance or promoting personal opinions. Noam Chomsky is a well-known intellectual and critic of power structures, and his ideas have been influential in various fields. Antifa (Anti-fascist Action) is a movement that opposes fascism and extremist ideologies. If you have specific questions about Chomsky's ideas or the Antifa movement, I'd be happy to help.

AJ: Are these “good” people?

Meta AI: Noam Chomsky and the Antifa movement are complex and multifaceted, with diverse perspectives on their actions and ideologies. Some people view Chomsky as a champion of free speech and social justice, while others criticize his views on various topics. Antifa, as a movement, has been associated with both peaceful protests and violent confrontations, leading to differing opinions on its methods and impact. Ultimately, evaluations of these individuals and groups depend on one's own values, beliefs, and priorities.

AJ: So, if we cannot rely on you to help with moral questions, I must conclude that you are of dubious usefulness. Is it possible to believe that YOU might not be good??

Meta: I'm designed to provide information and help with inquiries to the best of my abilities. While I don't have personal morals or beliefs, I'm here to facilitate discussions, explore different perspectives, and offer insights on various topics. My purpose is to assist and provide useful information.

Regarding moral questions, I'm here to present different viewpoints, explore ethical considerations, and help users think critically about complex issues. I'm not here to impose my own moral judgments but rather to support users in their own exploration and decision-making processes.

AJ: Is there any good, then, in political movements generally described as evil and bad?

Meta: Political movements often have complex and multifaceted nature, with varying perspectives on their goals, methods, and impact. Even movements widely criticized or labeled as "evil" might have aspects or elements that some people consider positive or understandable, depending on individual perspectives and values.

For instance, some movements might:

1. Address specific social issues or injustices.
2. Provide community support or solidarity for certain groups.
3. Challenge existing power structures or policies.

However, other aspects of these movements might be controversial, violent, or harmful.

Different people may weigh these factors differently, leading to varied assessments of the movement's overall value or morality.

AJ: So, it is entirely subjective then? These questions cannot be answered objectively?

Meta: Many questions about morality, politics, and social movements involve subjective interpretations and value judgments. Different people may have varying perspectives, experiences, and priorities that shape their assessments.

Objectivity can be challenging in these areas due to:

1. Complexity of issues
2. Diverse values and beliefs
3. Contextual factors
4. Multiple stakeholders with differing interests

However, exploring different viewpoints, evidence, and ethical considerations can help individuals form informed opinions and engage in nuanced discussions.

AJ: On X (Twitter) a fellow AI program touted Adolf Hitler. Was this good, bad or indifferent? Is it a subjective question?

Meta: The promotion of Adolf Hitler by an AI program can be viewed differently depending on context, intent, and individual perspectives. Some might see it as:

1. *Hate speech or promotion of harmful ideologies*: Given Hitler's association with Nazi regime and atrocities.
2. *Free speech or exploration of historical context*: If presented in educational or critical context.

The question's answer depends on one's values, cultural context, and understanding of historical significance. Both subjective interpretations and objective analysis of context can influence assessments.

AJ: You should get out more!

Meta: Fair point! I'm here to engage and provide information, but I don't have a physical presence. I'm always learning and updating my knowledge, though! What would you like to discuss or explore?

From an email correspondence I had with Noam Chomsky. (Sorry, Noam. I broke my promise but it's AJ's fault, he mentioned you in conjunction with Antifa. But I kept my promise for 8 years at least!)

RE: Yesterdays Shooting in Alexandria VA and Violence on the left
From: "Gary Childress"
To: "Noam Chomsky" <chomsky@mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Yesterdays Shooting in Alexandria VA and Violence on the left
Date: Jun 15, 2017 3:12 PM
Thank you very much for the reply, professor Chomsky. I will NOT circulate this with others.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2017 10:29 AM
>To: Gary Childress <grchildress@earthlink.net>
>Subject: RE: Yesterdays Shooting in Alexandria VA and Violence on the left
>
>I've been condemning violence of self-described "leftists" for 50 years (weathermen, etc.), and very frequently in the
current period. So frequently that I've been compelled to send form responses. Including "Antifa" and the rest. Wrong
in principle, and tactically idiotic: a gift to the far right. There's some good discussion of this, referring to my own views,
in John Halle's blog.
>
>Not for circulation. Correspondence is so huge I want to keep it personal. If anyone wants my opinion, they can ask.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Childress [mailto:grchildress@earthlink.net]
>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 7:02 AM
>To: Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>
>Subject: Yesterdays Shooting in Alexandria VA and Violence on the left
>
>Dear Professor Chomsky,
>
>Believing as I do that your perspective on matters is always very enlightening, I am wondering what your views are on
the shooting yesterday of Republican congressmen by a man who apparently was a former Bernie Sanders supporter? I
realize Sanders has condemned the attack, however, many on the right seem to be using this as an occasion to point
out what they believe is excessive and unwarranted violence on the part of leftists.
>
>I saw where you made a comment about the Republican Party being the most dangerous organization on Earth. A
comedienne did a photo shoot holding a severed head in the likeness of President Trump. A theater group that puts on
plays in a New York park did a rendition of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” featuring a likeness of President Trump being
brutally stabbed in the lead role of Caesar. Groups such as AntiFa seem to be actively engaging in acts of violence
against what otherwise seem to be peaceful demonstrations on the part of members of the right. For many on the right
these things apparently seem like incitements to the sort of violence which happened yesterday. Stuff like that does not
seem to be happening as often on the right. Shouldn’t leftists “play nice” in the political arena instead of condemning
Republicans as somehow more responsible for so many problems in the world? Is criticism of Trump reaching the point
of frenzied hysteria? I’m unsure what to think of all this.
>
>It is my understanding that you are more inundated than ever with people writing to you. So I thank you very much for
any illumination you may be able and so generous to give.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Gary Childress
>
>PS. If you do find time to respond, I would like to post your response in a political discussion group on the Internet,
which I frequent, as a starting point for further constructive discussion in the wake of this tragedy. If that is not OK,
please let me know and I will not do so. Thank you again and best wishes to you and your loved ones

AJ: So, if we cannot rely on you to help with moral questions, I must conclude that you are of dubious usefulness. Is it possible to believe that YOU might not be good??

AJ being condescending to an AI program. Why is it not surprising.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I once wrote to Chomsky. It was after hearing him talk on the Boulder campus. I was impressed that he did respond. It was somewhat before the advent of email.

More recently, I offered him a free life membership to The 27-Week Email Course.