In article <199409260616.XAA16173@deepthought.pylon.com>, <blancw@pylon.com> wrote:
But who pays attention to what Chomsky thinks (say, by comparison to others similarly inclined).
...
He isn't the only one who ever has, or ever will, advocate such things. He's not on the board of directors of the NII, is he; or how does he exert influence?
...
So is it Chomsky, or his fans who are the problem? And how do they succeed in making themselves influential?
...
This type of person is interchangeable: they could follow someone (like Chomsky) today or someone else tomorrow.
...
It looks as though you are simply fighting the ideas which many people have always found to their advantage to believe, but I can't see where Chomsky is the only & most important reason why they are willing to think as they do. So - those are my comments on Chomsky, about which I will write no more, as he doesn't sound interesting at all to pursue.
Amazing. Truly amazing. You could try actually reading what the man's written before dismissing him on one person's inflamatory rhetoric. I assure you, what he has to say is quite interesting, whether you agree with it or not (I don't always): it's just not worth arguing with someone who claims to know what Chomsky believes better than Chomsky does. -- L. Todd Masco | "A man would simply have to be as mad as a hatter, to try and cactus@bb.com | change the world with a plastic platter." - Todd Rundgren