noam chomsky
MDFranklin
references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
Bully
Sure!
Try
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
Enjoy
Bully
Bully wrote:
> MDFranklin wrote:
>
>> I am assigned to write a paper on Noam Chomsky. Can anyone give me
>> some good
>> references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
>> Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
I almost forgot- the difference between a Communist and Socialist is
only degree of state control. People will call themselves Socialist in
Europe to sound "better" and be accepted since communism was and always
has been such a failure. In the US they call themselves liberals or
progressive for the same reasons. The only time they would call
themselves Communists is when they have full control via state power
since they can fully suppress any dissenting voices.
MDFranklin
you could clear up a question I have about the second one
(http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html) which talks about his
anti-Semitism.
1) I have a quote from him where he says he is a Zionist, I am unclear how
one can be a Zionist and an anti-Semite (or Holocaust denier). Can anyone
elaborate?
2) Also, in my own research I have come across areas where his linguistic
theories have come into question now, as well as if he were the sole author
of them?
Thanks, MDF
"Bully" <bu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HLopf.33895$XJ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Toby
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:D8qpf.7872$nm....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thank you, those references were very interesting and enlightening.
> Perhaps
> you could clear up a question I have about the second one
> (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html) which talks about his
> anti-Semitism.
>
> 1) I have a quote from him where he says he is a Zionist, I am unclear how
> one can be a Zionist and an anti-Semite (or Holocaust denier). Can anyone
> elaborate?
>
> 2) Also, in my own research I have come across areas where his linguistic
> theories have come into question now, as well as if he were the sole
> author
> of them?
It's a broad subject with quite polarized voices on both sides. I suggest
you google "noam chomsky" and slog through what you find first, then come
back here with specific points that have not been answered in your reading.
Tpbu
Jens Herrmann
> I am assigned to write a paper on Noam Chomsky. Can anyone give me some good
> references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
> Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
If you want to know what Chomsky thinks this does mean you can read it
here: (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html)
A good introduction would be the article in the Wikipedia. Asked for a
book to get a 1st impression I would recommend "Understanding Power"
which is a collection of interviews. There is also plenty of video and
audio around. Some of it you can find on www.chomskytorrents.org .
Doing research on the Internet you will notice that there are a lot of
"critics" around. I would strongly encourage you to verify the
accusations made against Chomsky.
To give an example look at the article by Keith Windschuttle - "The
hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky" which was posted here.
It is said there that: "Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American
intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York
and Washington."
To decide if this is true or not it is worth to look at what he has said
and written about it.
(http://www.rense.com/general14/noamchomsky.htm)
Regards
Jens
MDFranklin
pointed questions for clarification that should be able to be answered by
someone here.
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:43a65f71$0$41536$bb4e...@newscene.com...
MDFranklin
negative things about him. And, as you allude, the sources come into
question. The rense.com you gave is a good example.
The questions I asked in another part of this thread are still unanswered,
these are from the Wikipedia files and his web site:
1) Questions concerning Chomsky's linguistic theorems, were they original
with him, was he the only author, and also aren't they being found to be
incorrect today?
2) I have a quote from him where he says he is a Zionist, I am unclear how
one can be a Zionist and an anti-Semite (or Holocaust denier). Can anyone
elaborate?
Thanks,
MDF
"Jens Herrmann" <lazy...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:40nfr5F...@individual.net...
katsteevns
criticism about him on the web.,,,his own site is called chomsky info. where
alot of his writings reside.
--
New York Times:
Drumbeat for the War
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:KFmpf.7787$nm....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jens Herrmann
> Thank you, Jens, that is a very good point. What I am finding are generally
> negative things about him. And, as you allude, the sources come into
> question. The rense.com you gave is a good example.
to Emma
Brockes from 'The Guardian' just 3 weeks ago. Most time "critics" cite the
interview but not the response Chomsky wrote some days later.
> The questions I asked in another part of this thread are still unanswered,
> these are from the Wikipedia files and his web site:
>
> 1) Questions concerning Chomsky's linguistic theorems, were they original
> with him, was he the only author, and also aren't they being found to be
> incorrect today?
Sorry I can't help you with that.
> 2) I have a quote from him where he says he is a Zionist, I am
unclear how
> one can be a Zionist and an anti-Semite (or Holocaust denier). Can anyone
> elaborate?
Chomsky discussed that in his interview with C-SPAN. I could not find a
transcript but it is available for file sharers (emule) or here:
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=3562&schedID=195
There is a quote of it on http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
--------------
Chomsky has also stated that he considers himself to be a conservative
(Chomsky's Politics, pp. 188) presumably of the classical liberal
variety. He has further defined himself as a Zionist; although, he notes
that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism
these days, the result of what he perceives to have been a shift (since
the 1940s) in the meaning of Zionism (Chomsky Reader). In a C-Span Book
TV interview, he stated:
"I have always supported a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. That is
different from a Jewish state. There's a strong case to be made for an
ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a
Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state — that's entirely
another matter."
Regards
Jens
Shannon Jacobs
Bully wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>
>> MDFranklin wrote:
>>
>>> I am assigned to write a paper on Noam Chomsky. Can anyone give me
>>> some good
>>> references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
>>> Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
>
> I almost forgot- the difference between a Communist and Socialist is
> only degree of state control. People will call themselves Socialist in
> Europe to sound "better" and be accepted since communism was and
> always has been such a failure. In the US they call themselves
> liberals or progressive for the same reasons. The only time they
> would call themselves Communists is when they have full control via
> state power since they can fully suppress any dissenting voices.
>
>
>>
>> Sure!
>>
>> Try
<tripe links snip>
>>
>> Enjoy
--
The truth alone will not make you free. However, it is one of the
prerequisites. Unless you know the truths underlying your options, you
cannot choose in freedom, whether you're buying shaving cream or a war.
Busheviks are simply slaves to BushCo's lies.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread" and/or
ploinked.
The World Wide Wade
<D8qpf.7872$nm....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Thank you, those references were very interesting and enlightening. Perhaps
> you could clear up a question I have about the second one
> (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html) which talks about his
> anti-Semitism.
You might want to keep in mind that Werner Cohn is mad as a
hatter.
Toby
> Thanks, "Toby", I'm slogging right now. Please get on track. I've asked
> two
> pointed questions for clarification that should be able to be answered by
> someone here.
Check these out:
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html
http://jidanni.org/abj/articles/20050130.html
Check out any of the copious references to the book "Partners in Hate:
Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers"
The wikipedia entry is a good intro to his linguistic theories. Love them or
hate them, it is quite obvious that he has made seminal and original
contributions to the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Contributions_to_linguistics
Toby
Toby
> MDFranklin schrieb:
>> Thank you, Jens, that is a very good point. What I am finding are
>> generally
>> negative things about him. And, as you allude, the sources come into
>> question. The rense.com you gave is a good example.
> Yes there is plenty of it. The last one was about an interview he gave to
> Emma
> Brockes from 'The Guardian' just 3 weeks ago. Most time "critics" cite the
> interview but not the response Chomsky wrote some days later.
>
>> The questions I asked in another part of this thread are still
>> unanswered,
>> these are from the Wikipedia files and his web site:
>>
>> 1) Questions concerning Chomsky's linguistic theorems, were they original
>> with him, was he the only author, and also aren't they being found to be
>> incorrect today?
> Sorry I can't help you with that.
AFAIK they were original to him--at least he was the first to introduce and
codify them. I have seen it said that the field of linguistics essentially
began with him.
His ideas have been challenged from many sides, and there are different
branches of Chomskyian linguistics, just like there are diverse Christian
denominations which differ on certain points, but my understanding is that
his theories still form the basis of the field.
Toby
Dan Clore
> MDFranklin schrieb:
>
>> I am assigned to write a paper on Noam Chomsky. Can anyone give me
>> some good
>> references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
>> Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
>
> Chomsky considers himself to be an anarchist or 'liberal socialist'.
> If you want to know what Chomsky thinks this does mean you can read it
> here: (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html)
Actually, a "libertarian socialist", a traditional synonym
for anarchist.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> 2) I have a quote from him where he says he is a Zionist, I am unclear how
> one can be a Zionist and an anti-Semite (or Holocaust denier). Can anyone
> elaborate?
Just remember, you can't believe anything that Chomsky's
critics say about him. The basis of the charge of
anti-Semitism (or being a "self-loathing Jew") is his
criticism of crimes committed by the state of Israel. That
does not, of course, imply anti-Semitism. The basis of the
charge of Holocaust denial is that he has supported the
free-speech rights of Holocaust denials, while also noting
(often in very strong terms) that he disagrees with them.
The links that you have been given by Chomsky-bashers
provide good examples of their rank dishonesty. Werner Cohn
and Oliver Kamm claim, for example, that the French
translation of a book that Chomsky co-authored was published
by La Vieille Taupe, a small publisher that publishes works
on Holocaust revisionism. The book was actually published by
Albin-Michel, a large, mainstream publisher, that publishes
many well-known writers, like Stephen King, Tom Clancy,
Albert Schweitzer, Robin Cook, Whitley Strieber, Arthur
Hailey, Arthur C. Clarke, Carl Jung, Dean Koontz, Maggie
Thatcher, the Dalai Lama (they had some 7,700 books in print
when I checked; I couldn't find any Nazis or neo-Nazis among
them). Even after I exposed this lie, Werner Cohn and Oliver
Kamm both stuck to it, continuing to argue at length in this
newsgroup for the claim that the Dalai Lama's French
publisher is a small group of French neo-Nazis.
The claims of those who make a career of bashing Chomsky
practically always fall apart upon the slightest
examination, as in this case. If you want to write an essay
on Chomsky, the best tack to take is probably just to ignore
the critics, read a lot by the man himself, and make your
summary of his views from his own works.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Let Robeson Sing
>
>
> Bully wrote:
>
> > MDFranklin wrote:
> >
> >> I am assigned to write a paper on Noam Chomsky. Can anyone give me
> >> some good
> >> references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
> >> Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
>
> I almost forgot- the difference between a Communist and Socialist is
> only degree of state control. People will call themselves Socialist in
> Europe to sound "better"
So people are scared of saying what they think in the US?. Same old,
same old.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
MDFranklin
Well spoken. Thank you very much. If I do say so myself, I was coming to
that same conclusion. Internet news groups can be a "test by fire" :^) and
you really don't know the personalities behind the posts, or the
motivations, just the words. So you have to research more carefully.
I did go to Wikipedia first but since it has been used as a ready reference
by lefties in the past I was cautious, and it indeed did look like a
whitewash of Chomsky & Co. Not mentioned there, on my own I Googled
"Chomsky" and came up with his web site and spent quite a lot of time
reading his writings he has there. It seemed much more honest than Wiki.
In reading Chomsky by Chomsky I found what I considered to be a rather
honest person at times and a devious person at times and always erudite,
well at least verbose. I think he almost deserves (relishes?) in his
misunderstanding by his detractors because he doesn't seem to have the sense
to make himself clear, to clarify his statements and positions that are
bound to be controversial. Perhaps his clarifications and rebuttals are
covered up or squelched by the other side, I don't know, but he should have
learned to be double-careful to be clear the first time around, because he
probably wouldn't get a second airing. Perhaps he is playing: that is an
intellectual sideline; I can grok that.
Regarding the horse that brought him onto the stage, linguistics, I don't
think he deserved all the hoopla he got, because I don't think those were
his ideas in the first place. Also, I think so many of them are being
abrogated today that he has become a footnote to a footnote.
But how he (was) progressed to the political stage is another matter and the
consequences for his backers were successful: the "Domino Theory" was proven
true and millions of gentle and good people died a horrible and violent
death.
He does have a lot of blood on his hands, there's a lot of bad karma to work
off.
So Chomsky's epitath is: You can be an "intellectual" and you can be dead
wrong.
MDF
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:40qb1eF...@individual.net...
Bully
> A troll and his sock puppet are never parted. Excellent example:
>
The term troll is highly subjective. Some may characterize a post as
trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate
contribution, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit
an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem.
Thus, if you believe the opinions are wrong- explain why or just say I'm
wrong.
Note: posting to more than five groups is traditionally - right or
wrong- as an act of "trolling" behavior. What a conundrum of life -
where the mere act of accusing others as trolling becomes a act of
trolling. I'm sure this wasn't your intention.:)
Bully
> Bully wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bully wrote:
>>
>> > MDFranklin wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am assigned to write a paper on Noam Chomsky. Can anyone give me
>> >> some good
>> >> references? I have heard he was a Communist, and I've heard he was a
>> >> Socialist. Which was he and what's the difference? Thanks, MDF
>>
>> I almost forgot- the difference between a Communist and Socialist is
>> only degree of state control. People will call themselves Socialist in
>> Europe to sound "better"
>
>
> So people are scared of saying what they think in the US?. Same old,
> same old.
>
Not scared- just deceptive! Face it- in politics it is all about "spin"
Ha-Emet
Globalization Of Socialism
"...In fact, socialism did work at one period in history: during the
1930s, and again in the '50s and '60s, socialist economies like that of
the U.S.S.R. grew faster than their capitalist counterparts. But they
stopped working sometime during the 1970s and '80s ....."
anarc...@yahoo.com
> ...
> Regarding the horse that brought him onto the stage, linguistics, I don't
> think he deserved all the hoopla he got, because I don't think those were
> his ideas in the first place. Also, I think so many of them are being
> abrogated today that he has become a footnote to a footnote.
It is the nature of scientific theories to be superseded by
other, better theories. That is how science works, and it
was Chomsky's job as a scientist to avoid self-replicating
dogmatism. If his theories got people excited and were
subsequently replaced by better ones, he did his job well.
However, I find it curious that you don't think his ideas
were "his in the first place." Do you mean he lifted his
theories intact from someone else? Who? Or do you
mean something else? I'd be very interested to know
how you trace the geneaology of his work.
MDFranklin
<anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135175875.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> If his theories got people excited and were
> subsequently replaced by better ones, he did his job well.
Check with the Cubans and Vietnamese and Cambodians for how "well" he did
for them
The World Wide Wade
<KTfqf.8785$nm....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > If his theories got people excited and were
> > subsequently replaced by better ones, he did his job well.
>
> Check with the Cubans and Vietnamese and Cambodians for how "well" he did
> for them
On second thought, check out Werner Cohn. You're bound to be
impressed.
MDFranklin
>
> > 2) I have a quote from him where he says he is a Zionist, I am unclear
how
> > one can be a Zionist and an anti-Semite (or Holocaust denier). Can
anyone
> > elaborate?
>
> Just remember, you can't believe anything that Chomsky's
> critics say about him. The basis of the charge of
> anti-Semitism (or being a "self-loathing Jew") is his
> criticism of crimes committed by the state of Israel. That
> does not, of course, imply anti-Semitism.
Well, I have to stop you there because as we both know we have it arranged
that any criticism of anything Jewish automatically stamps the criticizer
with the label "Anti-Semite!"
You're right on there, Dan. I have spent a lot of time on his web site as
well as reading his speeches from Marxist sites and sources so I think I'm
getting a good picture of him and what he was about and the results of his
activism. The areas I am trying to nail down now are his educational record
and academic certification and qualification and then his actual so-called
"linguistic" work and whether or not he rode to fame on his own or another's
ideas, it is looking like he should have shared a lot of credit there. I am
also deciding if one of his/their chief tenets is dead wrong.
anarc...@yahoo.com
So your assertion about his scientific theories being not original was
totally vacuous?
G*rd*n
[ about Noam Chomsky's linguistics ]
> > > subsequently replaced by better ones, he did his job well.
MDFranklin:
> > Check with the Cubans and Vietnamese and Cambodians for how "well" he did
> > for them
> So your assertion about his scientific theories being not original was
> totally vacuous?
Recently rightists became tired of merely attacking Chomsky's
politics and character. They decided his scientific work must
also be bad, because its author did not believe in the correct
faith -- theirs. Subsequently some articles appeared on
various web sites (and probably in print, as well) which noted
(correctly) that many theoreticians and researchers in
linguistics now disagree with Chomsky. Not understanding
science, the authors of the anti-Chomsky articles assumed that
superseded means invalid and proceeded accordingly. Reflecting
these sites, at least when I looked last, were a number of
other sites whose authors admitted to complete ignorance of
Chomsky's scientific work (and linguistics in general) but
felt called upon to denounce it anyway. A baseless charge
that Chomsky's work was not original may be a further offshoot
of this vogue. If so, you are not going to get any
"genealogy" of his ideas.
MDFranklin
<anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135215418.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
MDFranklin
quite eloquent and ignorant and not so "vacuously" attack a scholar doing
his research on a controversial character. You do not represent well
Chumpski's admirers as being unbiased and objective and intellectual--i.e.
scholarly and scientific. You on this thread of a thread are emerging as
mean and base and politically motivated and we know which side that kow-tows
to. Conspirators hate to be exposed. If you are in the process of losing one
of your last "respectable" props and spokespersons for your politik you have
only yourselves to blame so kindly get out of the way of scholarly,
scientific, philosophical inquiry with your childish tantrums.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dod1ah$o98$1...@reader1.panix.com...
G*rd*n
> > [ about Noam Chomsky's linguistics ]
> > > > > If his theories got people excited and were
> > > > > subsequently replaced by better ones, he did his job well.
MDFranklin:
> > > > Check with the Cubans and Vietnamese and Cambodians for how "well" he
> did
> > > > for them
anarc...@yahoo.com:
> > > So your assertion about his scientific theories being not original was
> > > totally vacuous?
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > Recently rightists became tired of merely attacking Chomsky's
> > politics and character. They decided his scientific work must
> > also be bad, because its author did not believe in the correct
> > faith -- theirs. Subsequently some articles appeared on
> > various web sites (and probably in print, as well) which noted
> > (correctly) that many theoreticians and researchers in
> > linguistics now disagree with Chomsky. Not understanding
> > science, the authors of the anti-Chomsky articles assumed that
> > superseded means invalid and proceeded accordingly. Reflecting
> > these sites, at least when I looked last, were a number of
> > other sites whose authors admitted to complete ignorance of
> > Chomsky's scientific work (and linguistics in general) but
> > felt called upon to denounce it anyway. A baseless charge
> > that Chomsky's work was not original may be a further offshoot
> > of this vogue. If so, you are not going to get any
> > "genealogy" of his ideas.
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com>:
> I'll thank you to speak to your own ignorance of which I'm sure you are
> quite eloquent and ignorant and not so "vacuously" attack a scholar doing
> his research on a controversial character. You do not represent well
> Chumpski's admirers as being unbiased and objective and intellectual--i.e.
> scholarly and scientific. You on this thread of a thread are emerging as
> mean and base and politically motivated and we know which side that kow-tows
> to. Conspirators hate to be exposed. If you are in the process of losing one
> of your last "respectable" props and spokespersons for your politik you have
> only yourselves to blame so kindly get out of the way of scholarly,
> scientific, philosophical inquiry with your childish tantrums.
I'm not a Chomsky fan, much less a representative of his
admirers (or anyone else) and I don't need or use him as a
spokesman for my political ideas, but I do find the cluster
of phenomena around Chomsky the media artifact sort of
interesting at times.
You, however, are not being interesting. One hardly needs
yet another case of the same-old same-old.
So why don't you surprise me and come up with something
new, like supporting your assertion that Chomsky's work
in linguistics was lifted from someone else's? You must
have had some idea what you were talking about when you
wrote it. Try to remember.
MDFranklin
> <anarc...@yahoo.com>:
>
> I'm not a Chomsky fan, much less a representative of his
> admirers (or anyone else) and I don't need or use him as a
> spokesman for my political ideas, but I do find the cluster
> of phenomena around Chomsky the media artifact sort of
> interesting at times.
>
> You, however, are not being interesting. One hardly needs
> yet another case of the same-old same-old.
>
> So why don't you surprise me and come up with something
> new, like supporting your assertion that Chomsky's work
> in linguistics was lifted from someone else's? You must
> have had some idea what you were talking about when you
> wrote it. Try to remember.
Chimpsky-troll, I suggest you follow your own advice and get straight and
then get your quote straight.
James A. Donald
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:53:00 +0000, Ha-Emet
<em...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> "...In fact, socialism did work at one period in
> history: during the 1930s, and again in the '50s and
> '60s, socialist economies like that of the U.S.S.R.
> grew faster than their capitalist counterparts."
Well according the Soviet statistics they grew faster,
but Soviet statistics appear to have been pulled pretty
much at random out of Stalin's ass.
An alternative interpretation is that Socialist
economies consistently grew slowly, and by 1990 the
difference had become so great it could no longer be
concealed.
Consider the Trabant, created in the 1950s when the
Soviet Union was supposedly growing faster than the
west. It looks remarkably like an effort to create a
cardboard replica of the United States consumer society,
a Potemkin village of economic growth without real
substance.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4oKlrkW/inS1/14ulW4thlICra76YAy6SCH7yP+K
4cywLTrFXQe9+1HBItqDa65hmX2NwpyMWcStWI1WM
Michael Gray
<mdfra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'll thank you to speak to your own ignorance of which I'm sure you are
>quite eloquent and ignorant and not so "vacuously" attack a scholar doing
>his research on a controversial character. You do not represent well
>Chumpski's admirers as being unbiased and objective and intellectual--i.e.
>scholarly and scientific. You on this thread of a thread are emerging as
>mean and base and politically motivated and we know which side that kow-tows
>to. Conspirators hate to be exposed. If you are in the process of losing one
>of your last "respectable" props and spokespersons for your politik you have
>only yourselves to blame so kindly get out of the way of scholarly,
>scientific, philosophical inquiry with your childish tantrums.
It's great to see how you avoided the easy shot of "attacking the
man", instead of the message.
G*rd*n
> > admirers (or anyone else) and I don't need or use him as a
> > spokesman for my political ideas, but I do find the cluster
> > of phenomena around Chomsky the media artifact sort of
> > interesting at times.
> >
> > You, however, are not being interesting. One hardly needs
> > yet another case of the same-old same-old.
> >
> > So why don't you surprise me and come up with something
> > new, like supporting your assertion that Chomsky's work
> > in linguistics was lifted from someone else's? You must
> > have had some idea what you were talking about when you
> > wrote it. Try to remember.
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com>:
> Chimpsky-troll, I suggest you follow your own advice and get straight and
> then get your quote straight.
You wrote: "Regarding the horse that brought him onto the
stage, linguistics, I don't think he deserved all the hoopla
he got, because I don't think those were his ideas in the
first place."[1] You can explain this, back it up by
telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
[1] AzUpf.7358$3Z....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
MDFranklin
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>
> You wrote: "Regarding the horse that brought him onto the
> stage, linguistics, I don't think he deserved all the hoopla
> he got, because I don't think those were his ideas in the
> first place."[1] You can explain this, back it up by
> telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
> keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
>
> [1] AzUpf.7358$3Z....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
>
Chimpsky-troll, now at long last you are almost behaving mannerly and I
always respond in kind as you have seen. You are obviously not the
"uninterested observer" you originally proclaimed to be--so why keep up the
pretence? I do not lie and I take great umbrage at those who are untruthful
while attacking others who are sincere, as I am. It always turns out they
are politically motivated and dress everything else in that garb, including
their so-called 'science'. Thank you, for the sake of the lurkers, for
citing the quote you are hung up on: "I don't think those were his ideas in
the first place." Since that was but half a sentence in more than several
paragraphs I wrote sincerely to answer someone else I will note your
acceptance of the veracity of all the rest that I wrote which btw I
considered the most important. But having an iq higher than that of a potted
plant I do not live in the binary world you obviously inhabit and so
maintain a deeper and wider breadth of experience and understanding so I
will try to come down to your mental and educational gamut so that you will
understand my answer: No, I will not tell you why I don't think those were
all his ideas in the first place. As an aside, as I think I said elsewhere
in this thread, I think one or some of his bedrock assumptions are dead
wrong, which of course have fatal impact on all that followed. Now, to salve
your wounded feelings, I don't think what I said is all that terrible
because others here have pointed out that, to paraphrase, "that is the
nature of science, theories come and grow and earlier ones are discarded."
It wouldn't surprise me to find that this or these are the areas in which
others have made "course corrections." Leaving his politics aside and the
ramifications of his activism and how he was/is used by dark forces (now
there's something for you to bite on), while I don't necessarily "like" him,
nevertheless I think I understand him more than you can know. My goal is to
find the truth. I think he expressed his truth as he knew it, almost to a
fault. To get back to my answer to you: You will have to wait until my book
is published to read the reference(s). Complain to "Carl Woodward" if you
can get that oblique reference. (Maybe someone else here can explain it to
you.)
G*rd*n
>> You wrote: "Regarding the horse that brought him onto the
>> stage, linguistics, I don't think he deserved all the hoopla
>> he got, because I don't think those were his ideas in the
>> first place."[1] You can explain this, back it up by
>> telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
>> keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
>>
>> [1] AzUpf.7358$3Z....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com>:
> Chimpsky-troll, now at long last you are almost behaving mannerly and I
> always respond in kind as you have seen. You are obviously not the
> "uninterested observer" you originally proclaimed to be--so why keep up the
> pretence?
You must be thinking of someone else. I have never pretended
or claimed to be "uninterested" (or "disinterested" which is
probably the word you wanted).
> I do not lie and I take great umbrage at those who are untruthful
> while attacking others who are sincere, as I am. It always turns out they
> are politically motivated and dress everything else in that garb, including
> their so-called 'science'. Thank you, for the sake of the lurkers, for
> citing the quote you are hung up on: "I don't think those were his ideas in
> the first place." Since that was but half a sentence in more than several
> paragraphs I wrote sincerely to answer someone else I will note your
> acceptance of the veracity of all the rest that I wrote which btw I
> considered the most important. But having an iq higher than that of a potted
> plant I do not live in the binary world you obviously inhabit and so
> maintain a deeper and wider breadth of experience and understanding so I
> will try to come down to your mental and educational gamut so that you will
> understand my answer: No, I will not tell you why I don't think those were
> all his ideas in the first place. ...
Heh. Didn't think you would. Back under the bridge
with you, then.
Toby
> I'll thank you to speak to your own ignorance of which I'm sure you are
> quite eloquent and ignorant and not so "vacuously" attack a scholar doing
> his research on a controversial character.
And then he continues:
You do not represent well
> Chumpski's admirers as being unbiased and objective and intellectual--i.e.
> scholarly and scientific.
"Chumpski"? Obviously no agenda here...just scholarly dispassion and the
search for truth ;-})
Happy Holidays,
Toby
john smith
oh. yeah? and? so what?
you think people will EVER stop fighting for their right to be free???
wasn't that what all the "fuzz" was about for the "founding fathers"
morons think socialism will "cease to be" ... because they're ignorants!
lets see. right! I 'll stop fighting for my rights and go back to the
1900 dreds..
so you see... no? didn't think so