Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Boston IMC ought to use 'current version 3.0" Creative Commons licences.....
08 Mar 2010
Modified: 07:55:10 AM
Well even though G/E mentioned this a coule of ytears ago or so and know that "public" discussion here of such matters is "not welcome, or does not appear to be, maybe it is worth mentining again:
Where one has the choice to choose a licene (aside from the "bug' if one mistakingly" directly chooses a CC license it reverts to "public domain. or it used to.... ) it ought to refer to current licenses.
"Version 3.0 licenses:"
Been thinking of an update to this for some time, now with the Gandi "promo code"....
"On the railings outside my local train station at Harringay, in north London, someone has carefully placed a series of small white stickers. The stickers, all at eye level, are designed, I suppose, to be the first thing you see on the way to work and the last thing you see on your way home. They are all neatly typed with two words: READ CHOMSKY. Most mornings I find myself wondering for an instant whether the words are an imperative ('If you do nothing else today...'), or a swaggering boast (along the lines of some of the station's other typical graffiti: 'Shagged Karen', say)."
"Remind me of the show "what's left?" "[Formal] Democracy Now!], etc. and the various ways of interpreting things (intended or not) but www.readchomsky.info will obviously "point" to www.chomsky.info.
It is not a mere suggestion nor a "call" to "read" but to stress that it is much more than "letters" and Books from Lexington."
Clearly, or it ought to be, numerous talks - just the other day at Harvard Yard - interviews, responses to letters, www.zmag.org, and such, and when some refer to "his" followers" they really are misinformed - it might be people with an inclination of independence and rightly miseducated in the proper sense, having a "certain reading of history."
I think, it is clearly, the vase as the writing (not to mention the consistency from say Reasons of State to the current) is based on the "documentation," not mere opinion - save when entering in on what is "known" about "human nature" - being able to write all he knows on the back of a postage stamp, but if one - say in the Critical Essays - one of the five volumes - if memory - then as is generally true - it is references to U.S. government documents and official views of matters - in this case Vietnam and then the three countries of Indochina - so when one refers to now for another view - it almost seems to necessarily be the "polite view" or within the "permissible spectrum," I refer to as what "offical's say" view.
What is it that one is critical of, the references as cited...then aside from the numbers of those being liberated to their resting places that of course can be debated, what is it? Then never mind the "anti-Roman'" - opps I mean....
Also, as one who knows who has "read" him it is a tremendus amount of references to many, many others, who he is refers to...And at other times the norm is for him to say "I think" to clearly separate things from the analysis based on what was said, what was in government dpapers, etc.
Try skimming footnotes, alone one would....some matters that some forms of the media have "missed." G/E hopes at some point to cull some selected notes and as well what I call thematic Chomsky to highlight many of the terms and ways he used to use concision in an expansive way - if that makes sense and seems contradictory for matters that require more than a corporate using the people's airwaves for profit - not in the common good' sense, but of course.
The Pentagon Papers; the Defense Department history of United States decisionmaking on Vietnam. At Brookline Public - stress that before it is the Brookline Private Library - of course it won't' be that clearly stated...
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license