CDR: Fwd: Re: Niiice kitty....
Another one, Entity 5 writes:
This is a calumny. I have personally checked hundreds, and I do mean hundreds--probably over 500--Chomsky citations to original texts and documents, and have never found any error that was not an obvious typographical error, a misprint or something like that. One can always argue about meaning and context, but the person who says that Chomsky is a fabricator is ignorant or lying. --.sig
Entity 4 wrote:
<< this was posted on the cypherpunks list. the respondent maintains that chomsky is well-known for misquoting or twisting quotes/sources. never heard that come up here in all our discussions... comments? cypherpunks is archived if you want more info.
.sig
<fowarded> --
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's book on Kosovo and came across this quote from a Cabinet note written by Churchill in January 1914 explaining the need for increased military expenditure (taken in turn from Clive Ponting's Churchill, 1994, P 132):
"We are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
Chomsky is hardly a reliable source. He routinely fabricates or falsifies quotes. I suggest you check his alleged sources.
Chances are you will be unable to find his alleged source. In the unlikely event that you are able to find it, it will not say quite what Chomsky claims it said.
--digsig
</backwarded>
--
This is a calumny. I have personally checked hundreds, and I do mean hundreds--probably over 500--Chomsky citations to original texts and documents, and have never found any error that was not an obvious typographical error, a misprint or something like that.
It would take you years to check five hundred Chomsky citations. His citations are at best obscure and hard to find, at worst impossible to find. Almost every Chomsky citation that I have checked was at best somewhat misleading, and at worst a lie. Chomsky's citations are usually false in one of three ways, sometimes false in all three ways at the same time. 1. Chomsky misrepresents the authority of the sources. For example in "Distortions at fourth hand" quoted in full in <http://www.jim.com/jamesd/chomsdis.htm> he represented Hildebrand and Porter as an independent review of evidence from impartial sources, whereas in fact they were merely mouthpieces of the Khmer Rouge. He represented Ponchaud as merely the mouthpiece of US imperialism, while in fact Ponchaud had interviewed hundreds of refugees, and collected hundreds of first hand accounts of Khmer Rouge terror. 2. Chomsky misrepresents the content of the sources: For example Chomsky represented the testimony of murder, torture,and terror collected by Ponchaud as second hand, when in fact it was first hand. 3. Chomsky claims sources that just cannot be found. In particular the article "Distortions at fourth hand" first leads up to the purported citation of "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false", and then proceeds to draw all sorts of conclusions from the alleged falsity of these massacre reports. Without this alleged citation, his article, appearing a few months after the photos of the massacres north of Aranyaprathet had horrified the world, would have sounded like the banal totalitarian propaganda that is, would have sounded no different from the vast pile of totalitarian propaganda that had become so painfully familiar throughout the twentieth century. This alleged citation is the very key and center of the whole article, and no one can find it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG FPdykYK0P9Z3AdZh1bYxf6jZLGkO8dWr4JrqFPRz 4/zYVs4LADvz0S920cVAl2OSu3k/RRIrZM0+o3UFI
At 01:11 AM 05/10/00 -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
--
This is a calumny. I have personally checked hundreds, and I do mean hundreds--probably over 500--Chomsky citations to original texts and documents, and have never found any error that was not an obvious typographical error, a misprint or something like that.
It would take you years to check five hundred Chomsky citations. His citations are at best obscure and hard to find, at worst impossible to find.
The timescale for checking these quotes was not specified, I think it's safe to assume that years did transpire.
Almost every Chomsky citation that I have checked was at best somewhat misleading, and at worst a lie.
We've already seen how you picked up an extra word in that massacre quote, is it safe to assume you've made other errors?
Chomsky's citations are usually false in one of three ways, sometimes false in all three ways at the same time.
1. Chomsky misrepresents the authority of the sources. For example in "Distortions at fourth hand" quoted in full in <http://www.jim.com/jamesd/chomsdis.htm>
jim.com? jamesd? this is your personal website? O-kaaaaaaay,,, *there's nothing like citing an impartial source, is there?* Just the same, I'll take a look. If it's more than what, 200 words(?), I wonder if Chomsky would be interested, along with the calumnies et al.? *empty threat, I've no time and really don't care - but I wonder if the page will still be up, tomorrow, when I check*
2. Chomsky misrepresents the content of the sources:
A-HEM,,, THE content of THE quote is highly contentious, is it not? ^^^ ^^^
3. Chomsky claims sources that just cannot be found. In particular the article "Distortions at fourth hand" first leads up to the purported citation of "repeated discoveries that the massacre reports were false",
News flash for ya goodbuddy - that quote of yours has already been repudiated. Got anything better? Something more recent, perhaps? Like, within the last decade or two? And hey? Rather than a generic "Chomsky quotes..." give us a specific one, like that other one we've sliced and diced and shoved back down your throat. 20 years old, or less. Reese
-- James A. Donald:
Almost every Chomsky citation that I have checked was at best somewhat misleading, and at worst a lie.
At 03:31 PM 10/5/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
We've already seen how you picked up an extra word in that massacre quote, is it safe to assume you've made other errors?
Big deal. Chomsky tells the reader that somewhere there is some underreported evidence that the reports of Khmer Rouge massacres were fake, implying that the photographs of murdered women and children that his readers had seen in the newspapers a few months previously were fraudulent. So where is this evidence that he so confidently cites? We are not talking about left out commas, or even omitted ellipses. We are talking about whole damned citations that just are not there. Chomsky complains bitterly because Shawcross' editors left out three ellipses when quoting Chomsky, and then fabricates stuff wholesale and attributes it to Shawcross.
News flash for ya goodbuddy - that quote of yours has already been repudiated.
Liar. In his 1977 Nation article Chomsky claimed: : : such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review , the : : London Economist , the Melbourne Journal of Politics , and : : others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly : : qualified specialists who have studied the full range of : : evidence available, and who concluded that executions have : : numbered at most in the thousands; that these were : : localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and : : unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings : : were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from : : the American destruction and killing. These reports also : : emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides : : during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and : : repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. Pretty much every word in his claim is of course false in one way or another, a mixture of misleading half truths and outrageous blatant lies. I can go through it word by word if anyone cares. But let us take a different approach. Is there any phrase in that stream of lies and misdirections that you wish to defend? Is there anything in his claim that you are willing to defend as true? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG d7Zg1dd3YMbY+qe2HcnAuJ0KtJ/IFibx+iozE+x/ 4U/P6jjNfg+dLFSb0iUoOJsOI+z7rKS/Dd0dKWeRG
At 09:02 PM 05/10/00 -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
-- James A. Donald:
Almost every Chomsky citation that I have checked was at best somewhat misleading, and at worst a lie.
At 03:31 PM 10/5/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
We've already seen how you picked up an extra word in that massacre quote, is it safe to assume you've made other errors?
Big deal. Chomsky tells the reader that somewhere there is some underreported evidence that the reports of Khmer Rouge massacres were fake,
WHERE? WHERE DOES HE SAY THIS? Exact source with quote, or shaddup. I'm not a Chomsky fan. I'm not a Chomsky hater. Prior to a few months ago, Chomsky was a name I'd heard only on this list, but not checked out. But what James here seems to be up to is something I'm very much familiar with, character assassination. Give me a quote Chomsky has offered up that is unverifiable, James, tell me where I can find this Chomsky quote myself, so I can verify the Chomsky quote you offer up. Verify that it does properly exist, and then I'll seek to verify or refute the accuracy of the Chomsky quote myself. As it is, I'm left to verify the accuracy of your quoting of Chomsky. If that is all you can offer up, just get the fuck out of my face.
News flash for ya goodbuddy - that quote of yours has already been repudiated.
Liar.
Fucking illiterate slob with a political agenda. ;)
In his 1977 Nation article Chomsky claimed:
*bzzzzzzzzzzzzt* 20 years or newer, remember? Within the last decade, or two? Remember? Learn how to read. Comprehend what you read. Get some lessons at your local community college. Idiot. Reese
-- James A. Donald:
In his 1977 Nation article Chomsky claimed:
08:25 PM 10/5/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
*bzzzzzzzzzzzzt*
20 years or newer, remember? Within the last decade, or two? Remember?
So are you now admitting that Chomsky used to continually make fraudulent citations, but claiming he has since reformed? My reason for using Chomsky's twenty year old lies, lies from the time that the Soviet Union was at its greatest power, appeared to be winning, and appeared to be on the path to world domination, rather than his current lies, is that my purpose is to show that the most famous "anarcho" socialist intended not anarchy, but world domination by the Soviet Union, intended not some new and wonderful form of socialism, but socialism as we came to know it during twentieth century. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG h52T0Un6gQhVgJhl580c3gKk1EqSn+TI2d+5PTjH 4g9OJQcZodritVBctFraTYIG5PtJja8vYfcOIUPyi
At 07:42 AM 06/10/00 -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
-- James A. Donald:
In his 1977 Nation article Chomsky claimed:
08:25 PM 10/5/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
*bzzzzzzzzzzzzt*
20 years or newer, remember? Within the last decade, or two? Remember?
So are you now admitting that Chomsky used to continually make fraudulent citations, but claiming he has since reformed?
That furtive leap must parse as sound logic in your alcohol-addled brain, it isn't.
My reason for using Chomsky's twenty year old lies, lies from the time that the Soviet Union was at its greatest power, appeared to be winning, and appeared to be on the path to world domination, rather than his current lies, is that my purpose is to show that the most famous "anarcho" socialist intended not anarchy, but world domination by the Soviet Union, intended not some new and wonderful form of socialism, but socialism as we came to know it during twentieth century.
My reason for asking for something more recent, more current, is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate once and for all, that Chomsky is as crooked now as you claim he was then, but I guess that's too much for you. Reese
participants (2)
-
James A.. Donald -
Reese