Internet & social control

[Malignd]

Me:

<<His argument at bottom is built on two notions: (a)
that, since there was military involvement, it was
ipso facto sinister; and (b) Pynchon says so.>>  

Millison:

<<No, three facts -- the Internet's tainted roots from
its Cold War paranoia and M.A.D. origins ...>> 

And thus you make point (a) above.  The military
requesting the Rand Corp for a study on a secure or a
securable communications system amounts to "tainted
roots."  ("Tainted roots"?)   

<<... current use of the Internet by governments and
corporations ...>>

And virtually every other cross-section or group you
could mention. 

<<... the Internet's potential for further abuse --
support Pynchon's statement in the Foreword to
_1984_.>>

"Further"?  You need be reminded that you haven't
demonstrated any current abuse of the sort you're
describing.  

And "potential for" frees the imagination to make
predictions about anything.  Which is to say the
prediction is empty and meaningless.

As to point (b):

<<Friedman lacks Pynchon's wisdom and style, of
course.>>

Style is certainly irrelevant; as is "wisdom," so
used.  Knowledge of the topic is more to the point and
there's no reason except blind faith to believe
Pynchon has any particular knowledge of the topic; he
certainly hasn't demonstrated any.  His grasp of world
affairs hardly matches Friedman's.

<<F is a popular columnist, certainly, and he
definitely knows which side of his bread is buttered
-- he's a bootlicker.>>

Which, as well as false and ad hominem (and said by
you about a journalist, an astonishing bit of
chutzpah), skips entirely the points he raised.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com