Noam @#$%#@$% Chomsky again

>>>>>In other words, the
>>>>> government is doing what it's doing largely at the behest of
>>>>> the corporations.
>>>>
>>>>> // what if we replaced the word "corporations" in your
>>>>> statement, with the phrase "the people who work for defense
>>>>> contractors". And what if we replaced that phrase with the
>>>>> word "people". What changes?
>>>
>>>> How about we replace it with "a few rich and powerful people,
>>>> who won't feel the negative effects thereof." There, that's
>>>> more accurate.
>>
>>>Question: If they won't feel the effects, why do they care?
>>
>> I said the negative effects. they do care about feeling the
>> positive effects (i.e. money).
>
>Are you saying they care about gaining money but not about
>loosing it?

They care about gaining money, but not a whole lot about how much their
gains are costing other people.

>>>> > Chomsky is a nitwit. He doesn't give references,
>>>>
>>>> there are pages of footnotes at the end of every chapter of
>>>> every book he's written. (well, maybe except for the
>>>> interview books).
>>>
>>>I've never seen a reference in material I've read on the web.
>>>Perhaps much of that was interviews.
>>
>> Anything besides the Faurisson thing is nitwitty? (And I'm
>> still not entirely convinced that, given all the facts, he'd
>> come up guilty on that one).

>He's just an ego-maniacal turd;

To my mind "ego-maniacal" and "nitwit" are two different fruit-types.
Someone can be ego-maniacal and still be correct. there are plenty of
composers who are assholes, that I never want to hang out with, but I
still like their music. So, I don't really care if he's ego-maniacal.
He's old, and I don't think I'll ever have to deal with him personally.

>what can I tell you?

You can give examples. I have seen good attempts (none entirely
successful) at debunking him.

>I'd
>say he should stick to linguistics, but his work there is
>equally unimpressive.

That's like saying Einstein is unimpressive, because all of this theories
have been superceded.

>>>>>>> In other words, the government is doing what it's doing
>>>>>>> largely at the behest of the corporations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // what if we replaced the word "corporations" in your
>>>>>> statement, with the phrase "the people who work for defense
>>>>>> contractors". And what if we replaced that phrase with the
>>>>>> word "people". What changes?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about we replace it with "a few rich and powerful
>>>>> people, who won't feel the negative effects thereof."
>>>>> There, that's more accurate.

My point was the government is not obeying a few rich and
powerful people, but rather all the people profit from the
business.

>>>> Question: If they won't feel the effects, why do they care?
>>>
>>> I said the negative effects. they do care about feeling
>>> the positive effects (i.e. money).
>>
>> Are you saying they care about gaining money but not about
>> loosing it?
>
> They care about gaining money, but not a whole lot about
> how much their gains are costing other people.

Plenty of people from all walks of life behave this way.
It has nothing to do with being rich. It is the case that
being rich places them in a position of greater responsibilty,
and they are indeed held to much closer scrutiny, and a
much higher standard of behavior, than people on the street.

> >>>> > Chomsky is a nitwit. He doesn't give references,
//
> >>
> >> Anything besides the Faurisson thing is nitwitty? (And I'm
> >> still not entirely convinced that, given all the facts, he'd
> >> come up guilty on that one).
>
> >He's just an ego-maniacal turd;
>
> To my mind "ego-maniacal" and "nitwit" are two different
> fruit-types. Someone can be ego-maniacal and still be correct.

True.

> >what can I tell you?
>
> You can give examples.

It's true. I retract my statements, for now. When I arrive
in hell, I'll take up the task of debunking his mountains of
deliberately-obfuscated garbage in earnest.

>> I'd say he should stick to linguistics, but his work there
>> is equally unimpressive.
>
> That's like saying Einstein is unimpressive, because all of
> this theories have been superceded.

None of Einstein's theories have been superceded, but I get
your point. Chomsky has made important contributions to our
thinking about language. But the signal/noise ratio is very
poor.

-Carl