| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
14 May 2005 11:51:40 AM |
| Object: |
Chomsky the Ba'athist |
Chomsky the Ba'athist
by Steven Plaut
Almost the entire world, certainly the entire civilized world, is in awe and
in dazed euphoria at the sight of Lebanese defying the Syrian fascist
regime, openly demanding liberation of their country from Syrian oppression.
Many of us who never believed we would see such a movement in our lifetimes
are overwhelmed with admiration for this rebellion of the masses against
tyranny; and all this, in the Arab world.
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed at
seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomksy, the MIT inventor of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and
perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many Lebanese lives
it costs.
His reason? He insists Syrian occupation of Lebanon is necessary as a way to
prevent those evil Israelis from doing horrid deeds in Lebanon, like
attempting to protect their citizens from terrorist attacks launched out of
Lebanon. Yes, the same academic apologist for the Khmer Rouge - who defended
the Communist regime in Cambodia to the last throughout the years of the
genocide it carried out - prefers to have Lebanon under Bashar Al-Assad's
jackboot. Especially if it prevents the Lebanese from engaging in their
notorious fondness for capitalism and entrepreneurship, which Chomsky wants
wiped out and replaced with Stalinism, and if it also deters Israel from
striking terrorist bases.
Really.
Chomsky is redistributing a screed on the usual moonbat web sites - those
that otherwise spend their days celebrating Ward Churchill's ideas - in
which he sings the song of celebrating Ba'athism. Chomsky has spent the past
decade defending Syria's oppression of Lebanon, and his pro-Assad articles
are being recycled these days on Indymedia web sites and by the Ba'athists
themselves. (Also take a look at http://sdimc.org/en/2005/02/107735.shtml.)
Noam Chomsky is not only more anti-American than Ward Churchill, arguing
that America is a far more evil country than Nazi Germany, but he is a
vicious anti-Semite, as well. He not only defends Holocaust deniers and
Palestinian mass murderers of Jews, but he also promotes every anti-Jewish
blood libel to crawl out of its hole, including - this week - the old
neo-Nazi fable concerning the Israeli mistaken firing upon the USS Liberty
in the middle of the Six Day War.
The US government long ago put that story to rest, saying it was all an
understandable human error in the middle of the fog of war. But the
neo-Nazis and anti-Semites continue to beat the USS Liberty drum, never, of
course, displaying any interest in any of those thousands of American lives
lost due attacks by Islamofascists. Such people are only interested in
protesting the loss of American lives when this serves to demonize Israel
and "dem Joos".
Chomsky, of course, has never met an Islamofascist terrorist he did not
like. He is recycling his "theories" about the criticism of Syria being all
some US-Zionist-Imperialist conspiracy. (See
http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node.php?id=12362 and
http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/motivations_for_terror/
and
http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/state_terror_vs_resistance/.)
It is all part of the "Take a Ba'athist to Lunch" campaign being run by the
far-left, including the Cockburn crowd. (See
http://counterpunch.com/landau03022005.html and
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03092004.html and especially this piece,
under the title "Echoes of Cambodia", in the magazine that runs the Khmer
Rouge's academic spokes-stooge as a regular columnist.)
On a personal note, I have long argued that people become leftists as a sort
of gesture of infantile rage against their parents. In the case of Chomsky,
the father of Noam was a fine Bible teacher, one from whom I took classes
back in the 1960s. Noam seems to have devoted his life to showing contempt
for everything his father held sacred and everything in which his father
believed.
The Bible? You know, that same Bible that contains those Ten Commandments
that the American Left is this week demanding before the Supreme Court be
prohibited from public display.
After all, the Left would not want people running around in public not
stealing, murdering or committing adultery. But the real clause that enrages
the leftists is that part about showing respect for your father and mother.
http://arutzsheva.com/article.php3?id=4867
.
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 10:40:57 AM |
|
|
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1ezw2iwvlefkw.dlg@sec12-astroblaster.pepsi.com...
Chomsky the Ba'athist
by Steven Plaut
It is obvious that the Syrians overstayed their welcome. It is known as well
that they were brutal in their methods, and that they interfered strongly in
Lebanese politics. But things are not that simple. Let's not forget that
Syrian troops entered a Lebanon torn by civil war, back in 1976, as
peace-keepers, in a move backed by the Arab League. Let's not forget that
in 1982 they prevented the takeover of Lebanon by the Israelis. Let's not
forget also that for about 30 years the US tolerated and even supported
Syria's military presence in Lebanon. Let's not forget that in 1976 both
Israel and US wanted Syrian troops in Lebanon because they controlled the
300,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Current US' concern is Syria's
supposed support for insurgency in Iraq. That's why Bush wants them out of
Lebanon.
Let's also note the irony: 140,000 American troops occupy Iraq; there are
Israeli occupation forces in Palestinian lands, but Bush demands the
withdrawal of 14,000 Syrian troops from Lebanon.
Things are usually not as simple as the right-wingers would have us believe.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Toby" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
14 May 2005 08:35:02 PM |
|
|
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed at
seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomksy, the MIT inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and
perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many Lebanese
lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
Toby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 08:24:36 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed at
seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomksy, the MIT inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and
perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many Lebanese
lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 11:19:25 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed at
seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and
perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many Lebanese
lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 01:07:41 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed
at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and
perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 05:00:08 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed
at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and
perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be discredited
would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it 'languistics.'".
I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a professor of psychiatry & a
professor of linguistics completey discredit his theories.
But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its religious beliefs, that it
is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The Master could be wrong, on
anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 07:01:03 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend
and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be discredited
would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a professor
of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey discredit his
theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its religious
beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The Master
could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian linguistics.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 09:50:30 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend
and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be discredited
would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a professor
of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey discredit his
theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its religious
beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The Master
could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his theories.
In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is "some guy wrote
a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the Church of Chomsky.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nom de guerre" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 03:47:26 PM |
|
|
--------------C7EAF64CDE36A775783343F8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
zztop8970 wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend
and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be discredited
would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a professor
of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey discredit his
theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its religious
beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The Master
could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his theories.
In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is "some guy wrote
a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the Church of Chomsky.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Do you get paid to discredit Chomsky or something zz ?
you've been here what is it? ten years?
why the abnormal interest in chomsky???
there must be a thousand other liberals to criticize
you must get paid to do it or something?
like Bill O'Reilly on (out)fox(ed :)
--------------C7EAF64CDE36A775783343F8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>zztop8970 wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote
in message
<br><a href="news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net">news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net</a>...
<br>> In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<br>> zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
<br>>
<br>> >
<br>> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
<br>> > <a href="news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net">news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net</a>...
<br>> >> In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<br>> >> zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
<br>> >>
<br>> >>
<br>> >> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
<br>> >> > <a href="news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net">news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net</a>...
<br>> >> >> In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
Toby
<br>> >> >> pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
<br>> >> >>
<br>> >> >>
<br>> >> >> >> Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
<br>> >> >> >> overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
<br>> >> >> >> Chomksy, the MIT
<br>> >> > inventor
<br>> >> >> >> of
<br>> >> >> >> now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to
defend
<br>> >> >> >> and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter
how many
<br>> >> >> >> Lebanese lives
<br>> >> >> >> it costs.
<br>> >> >> >
<br>> >> >> > Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by
whom?
<br>> >> >>
<br>> >> >> I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling
it
<br>> >> >> "languistics."
<br>> >> >
<br>> >> > You guess wrong, then.
<br>> >> > Try
<br>> >> >
<br>> >
<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a>
<br>> >>
<br>> >> I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
<br>> >
<br>> > No, you obviously don't see.
<br>> > You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be discredited
<br>> > would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
<br>> > 'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor
<br>> > of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey discredit
his
<br>> > theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its
religious
<br>> > beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The
Master
<br>> > could be wrong, on anything.
<br>>
<br>> I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
<br>linguistics.
<p>why don't you open your eyes, then?
<br>I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against
his theories.
<br>In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is "some
guy wrote
<br>a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the Church
of Chomsky.
<p>>
<br>> Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever
the
<br>> ***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
<br>> shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
<p>And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
<br>denying the master could be wrong about anything.</blockquote>
<p>Do you get paid to discredit Chomsky or something zz ?
<p>you've been here what is it? ten years?
<p>why the abnormal interest in chomsky???
<p>there must be a thousand other liberals to criticize
<p>you must get paid to do it or something?
<p>like Bill O'Reilly on (out)fox(ed :)
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> </html>
--------------C7EAF64CDE36A775783343F8--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 04:01:27 PM |
|
|
In article <428906DE.C6F1BD09@nom.no> nom de guerre <nom_de_guerre@nom.no> writes:
ws.prodigy.com> <prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net> <Wq2ie.618$Uv2.163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------C7EAF64CDE36A775783343F8"
Lines: 193
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:47:26 +0200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.118.222.154
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: amstwist00 1116276445 84.118.222.154 (Mon, 16 May 2005 22:47:25 MEST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:47:25 MEST
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.fan.noam-chomsky:27455 alt.atheism:347282
--------------C7EAF64CDE36A775783343F8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
zztop8970 wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend
and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be discredited
would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a professor
of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey discredit his
theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its religious
beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The Master
could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his theories.
In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is "some guy wrote
a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the Church of Chomsky.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Do you get paid to discredit Chomsky or something zz ?
you've been here what is it? ten years?
why the abnormal interest in chomsky???
there must be a thousand other liberals to criticize
you must get paid to do it or something?
like Bill O'Reilly on (out)fox(ed :)
Heh. An interesting leap from someone's proposing an alternate
theory to "now discredited".
If that's the case, then Einstein is also "now discredited".
Quantum theory as well.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 07:29:47 PM |
|
|
nom de guerre wrote:
zztop8970 wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West
is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged.
Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined
to defend
and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter
how many
Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and
by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep
spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be
discredited
would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor
of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey discredit
his
theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in its
religious
beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you that The
Master
could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his
theories.
In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is "some
guy wrote
a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the Church of
Chomsky.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics,
whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the
hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics
professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky
fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Do you get paid to discredit Chomsky or something zz ?
No, why would you think that? Do you get paid for your posts?
you've been here what is it? ten years?
I've been posting to afnc for about 6 years.
why the abnormal interest in chomsky???
What do you find abnormal about my interest in Chomsky?
Do you think G*rd*n, who's been posting here for at least as long, also
has an abnormal interest in Chomsky?
there must be a thousand other liberals to criticize
That's probably true, but I do have a life.
you must get paid to do it or something?
Why? Do you get paid to post?
like Bill O'Reilly on (out)fox(ed :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nom de guerre" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 08:25:11 PM |
|
|
zztop8970 wrote:
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky
fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Do you get paid to discredit Chomsky or something zz ?
No, why would you think that?
Because you've been repeating 'charges' that have been
debunked and refuted again and again five to twenty times
daily for something soon close to a decade, that's why.
Do you get paid for your posts?
No but I can easily picture right-wing people do
from their corporate masters and "think tanks" vast resources
much like Bill O'Reilly on Fox "News"..
you've been here what is it? ten years?
I've been posting to afnc for about 6 years.
why the abnormal interest in chomsky???
What do you find abnormal about my interest in Chomsky?
Do you think G*rd*n, who's been posting here for at least as long, also
has an abnormal interest in Chomsky?
having / showing an interest in
discussing politics is one thing.
smearing a guy and looking
constantly for a chance to smear another
there must be a thousand other liberals to criticize
That's probably true, but I do have a life.
you must get paid to do it or something?
Why? Do you get paid to post?
ah, so you thought I shared your occupation?
sorry, no.
we do not have enough extremely rich
right wing assholes in scandinavia yet I don't think..
so as to create as nauseatingly evil an environment
to come up with right wing groups that pay
to spread their ***** that is..
but I hear CIA,NSA, and the entire gov. over there is geared towards
"psy-ops"(?) and propaganda towards its own these days so who knows
their budgets are big enough if known at all..
like Bill O'Reilly on (out)fox(ed :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:00:50 PM |
|
|
"nom de guerre" <nom_de_guerre@nom.no> wrote in message
news:428947F7.E3241D13@nom.no...
zztop8970 wrote:
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky
fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Do you get paid to discredit Chomsky or something zz ?
No, why would you think that?
Because you've been repeating 'charges' that have been
debunked and refuted again and again
five to twenty times
daily for something soon close to a decade, that's why.
I've been posting here for about 6 years, not close to a decade. I don't
psot here daily, and I doubt I've ever posted 20 times in a single day.
So, seeing as the "facts" you use to support the theory I get paid for
posting are completely false, I ask you agian: why do you think I get paid
to post?
Do you get paid for your posts?
No but I can easily picture right-wing people do
So, you can easily picture right wing people getting paid to post, but not
left wing people? Why is that?
from their corporate masters and "think tanks" vast resources
much like Bill O'Reilly on Fox "News"..
O'Reilly certainly gets paid, just like Dan Rather, and just like Al
franken or Michael Moore. None of these are posters on usenet, though. So
agian, what makes you think I get paid to post, but G*rd*n doesn't?
you've been here what is it? ten years?
I've been posting to afnc for about 6 years.
why the abnormal interest in chomsky???
What do you find abnormal about my interest in Chomsky?
Do you think G*rd*n, who's been posting here for at least as long, also
has an abnormal interest in Chomsky?
having / showing an interest in
discussing politics is one thing.
smearing a guy and looking
constantly for a chance to smear another
I have just as much interest in discussing politics as G*rd*n. The only
difference, AFAICT, is that G*rd*n supports Chomsky, while I oppsoe him. To
you, that suggests I get paid to oppose Chomsky. Why is that?
there must be a thousand other liberals to criticize
That's probably true, but I do have a life.
you must get paid to do it or something?
Why? Do you get paid to post?
ah, so you thought I shared your occupation?
sorry, no.
You post here just like I do. Why should one assume I get paid to post while
you don't?
we do not have enough extremely rich
right wing assholes in scandinavia yet I don't think..
What does this non sequitur have to do with anything we're discussing? (and
, BTW, there' s quite a lot of rich right wing people in Scandinavia.)
so as to create as nauseatingly evil an environment
to come up with right wing groups that pay
to spread their ***** that is..
but I hear CIA,NSA, and the entire gov. over there is geared towards
"psy-ops"(?) and propaganda towards its own these days so who knows
Do you think Scandinavian governement aren't wealthy enough to support paid
propaganda? Or that they don't have security agencies equivalent to the
CIA/ What a naive little simpleton you are.
their budgets are big enough if known at all..
like Bill O'Reilly on (out)fox(ed :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:35:24 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <Wq2ie.618$Uv2.163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to
defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter
how many Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be
discredited would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey
discredit his theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in
its religious beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you
that The Master could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his
theories. In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is
"some guy wrote a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the
Church of Chomsky.
Then you need to learn something about how science actually works. People
propose alternatives to dominant paradigms all the time. That's not, in
itself, "discrediting."
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever
the ***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Except for the fact I don't think of the man as "master" of anything,
don't have any "religious" feelings of any kind about his theories, nor
think he's incapable of being wrong.
By the way, that's a strawman you're talking to, I'm over *here...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:13:51 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:4uednaN9Gu0hIBXfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <Wq2ie.618$Uv2.163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to
defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no
matter
how many Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by
whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling it
"languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be
discredited would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling
it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey
discredit his theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist in
its religious beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like you
that The Master could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his
theories. In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is
"some guy wrote a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in the
Church of Chomsky.
Then you need to learn something about how science actually works. People
propose alternatives to dominant paradigms all the time. That's not, in
itself, "discrediting."
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever
the ***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Except for the fact I don't think of the man as "master" of anything,
don't have any "religious" feelings of any kind about his theories, nor
think he's incapable of being wrong.
You sure had me fooled when you dismissed scholarly criticismwhich rejects
his theory competely as "someone wrote a book sometime". that strikes me as
the attitude of someone who thinks Chomsky can't be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:38:07 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <Pjdie.1972$Uv2.300@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:4uednaN9Gu0hIBXfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <Wq2ie.618$Uv2.163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to
defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no
matter
how many Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by
whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling
it "languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be
discredited would be "some right wing blog where they keep spelling
it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey
discredit his theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist
in its religious beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like
you that The Master could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his
theories. In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse is
"some guy wrote a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in
the Church of Chomsky.
Then you need to learn something about how science actually works.
People propose alternatives to dominant paradigms all the time. That's
not, in itself, "discrediting."
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever
the ***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the
hysterical shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics
professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Except for the fact I don't think of the man as "master" of anything,
don't have any "religious" feelings of any kind about his theories, nor
think he's incapable of being wrong.
You sure had me fooled when you dismissed scholarly criticismwhich rejects
his theory competely as "someone wrote a book sometime". that strikes me
as the attitude of someone who thinks Chomsky can't be wrong.
And I stand by the remark. Anybody can publish a book and have it carried
by Amazon. Xlibris offers packages starting at $500 as a matter of fact...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
17 May 2005 09:55:52 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:8YydnZ3wIvaC-hTfRVn-gQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <Pjdie.1972$Uv2.300@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:4uednaN9Gu0hIBXfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <Wq2ie.618$Uv2.163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam
Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to
defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no
matter
how many Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by
whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep spelling
it "languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be
discredited would be "some right wing blog where they keep
spelling
it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey
discredit his theories. But the Chomsky cult is so fundementalist
in its religious beliefs, that it is unthinkable to a groupie like
you that The Master could be wrong, on anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his
theories. In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse
is
"some guy wrote a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in
the Church of Chomsky.
Then you need to learn something about how science actually works.
People propose alternatives to dominant paradigms all the time. That's
not, in itself, "discrediting."
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics,
whatever
the ***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the
hysterical shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics
professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky
fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Except for the fact I don't think of the man as "master" of anything,
don't have any "religious" feelings of any kind about his theories, nor
think he's incapable of being wrong.
You sure had me fooled when you dismissed scholarly criticismwhich
rejects
his theory competely as "someone wrote a book sometime". that strikes me
as the attitude of someone who thinks Chomsky can't be wrong.
And I stand by the remark. Anybody can publish a book and have it carried
by Amazon. Xlibris offers packages starting at $500 as a matter of fact...
And I stand by mine. You are not willing to look at contrary evidence, you
dismiss them offhand. You display a religious mindset..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
17 May 2005 11:08:48 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <YBnie.18277$J12.5722@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:8YydnZ3wIvaC-hTfRVn-gQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <Pjdie.1972$Uv2.300@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:4uednaN9Gu0hIBXfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode <Wq2ie.618$Uv2.163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:prmdnVHNO7YifxrfRVn-hQ@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<IDPhe.227$Uv2.109@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, zztop8970
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:ItmdnRHVXbxzEhrfRVn-3g@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<hEKhe.135$Uv2.31@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
zztop8970 pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare
proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:nt-dnYRFQYEJ0BrfRVn-uA@megapath.net...
In our last episode
<4286a6d0$0$16223$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
Toby
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is
overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged.
Noam Chomksy, the MIT
inventor
of
now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to
defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no
matter
how many Lebanese lives
it costs.
Since when are his linguistic theories discredited, and by
whom?
I'm guessing in some right wing blog where they keep
spelling it "languistics."
You guess wrong, then.
Try
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738206806/qid=1116173807/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9506283-9338565?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I see. So "discredited" means "some guy wrote a book once?"
No, you obviously don't see.
You guessed that the only where Chomsky's theories could be
discredited would be "some right wing blog where they keep
spelling
it
'languistics.'". I've shown you a scholarly reference, where a
professor of psychiatry & a professor of linguistics completey
discredit his theories. But the Chomsky cult is so
fundementalist in its religious beliefs, that it is unthinkable
to a groupie like you that The Master could be wrong, on
anything.
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
why don't you open your eyes, then?
I've just shown you a scholarly reference that argues against his
theories. In another psoted, i've listed several more. Your reponse
is
"some guy wrote a book once". You're a religious fundementalist in
the Church of Chomsky.
Then you need to learn something about how science actually works.
People propose alternatives to dominant paradigms all the time.
That's not, in itself, "discrediting."
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics,
whatever
the ***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the
hysterical shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics
professor...
And it's just as amusing to wathc the religious frevor of Chomsky
fans
denying the master could be wrong about anything.
Except for the fact I don't think of the man as "master" of anything,
don't have any "religious" feelings of any kind about his theories,
nor think he's incapable of being wrong.
You sure had me fooled when you dismissed scholarly criticismwhich
rejects
his theory competely as "someone wrote a book sometime". that strikes
me as the attitude of someone who thinks Chomsky can't be wrong.
And I stand by the remark. Anybody can publish a book and have it
carried by Amazon. Xlibris offers packages starting at $500 as a matter
of fact...
And I stand by mine. You are not willing to look at contrary evidence, you
dismiss them offhand. You display a religious mindset..
Yeah, okay, whatever.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
15 May 2005 09:02:24 PM |
|
|
...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>:
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian linguistics.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics, whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
You're observing ideologues for whom political theory is
religious doctrine. If Chomsky is of Satan's party politically,
then in every other respect he must be equally evil and wrong,
including his scientific work. There remains but to hunt up
scientists who disagree with the scientific work, find a few,
list them, and announce that he has been "discredited". There
is no need for the faithful to know anything about the actual
scientific issues or indeed anything about science at all,
since they already know the all the important answers.
As you said elsewhere, "Yawn."
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 08:00:42 PM |
|
|
G*rd*n wrote:
...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>:
I still don't see anything about the discrediting of Chomskian
linguistics.
Anyway, I've never paid any attention to Chomsky's politics,
whatever the
***** they are. But it is amusing sometimes to watch the hysterical
shrieking from the right about some aging linguistics professor...
You're observing ideologues for whom political theory is
religious doctrine.
Indeed, but you have your sides mixed up.
If Chomsky is of Satan's party politically,
then in every other respect he must be equally evil and wrong,
including his scientific work. There remains but to hunt up
scientists who disagree with the scientific work, find a few,
list them, and announce that he has been "discredited". There
is no need for the faithful to know anything about the actual
scientific issues or indeed anything about science at all,
since they already know the all the important answers.
As you said elsewhere, "Yawn."
I am not particularly interested in discrediting Chomsky's linguistic
works. I am not a linguist, and I'm not qualified to judge his
contributions to that field, beyond reading and evaluating what others,
who are qualified to do so, say about his work. As a computer
engineering grad, I recognize his contribution to compiler theory. So
much for your theory that I seek to show that Chomsly is "evil and
wrong" in his scientific work.
Now look at my opponents: They first surmise that any criticism of
Chosmky's academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose
authors can't spell, and when presented with scholarly works that
reject Chomsky's theories, they dismiss them as "someone wrote a book
sometime". Tell me, who is displaying religions reverence and refusing
to evaluate contradictory evidence here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 08:41:24 PM |
|
|
...
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com>:
...
Now look at my opponents: They first surmise that any criticism of
Chosmky's academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose
authors can't spell, and when presented with scholarly works that
reject Chomsky's theories, they dismiss them as "someone wrote a book
sometime". Tell me, who is displaying religions reverence and refusing
to evaluate contradictory evidence here?
I regret that I have omitted to study your contests with the
lovers of Uncle Noam, Mr. ZZ; for all I know, they are a bunch
of crazed fanatics who regard him as the Second Coming of
Christ. Usually these lengthy, querelous, idea-free exchanges
bore me. My interest in this story started with noting that
_David_Horowitz_ had published two chapters of criticism of
Chomsky's linguistics in his handbook for the _other_ religion.
"David Horowitz and _linguistics_?", I said to myself. "This
could be rich." I dealt with and observed others deal with
Mr. Horowitz occasionally when the Salon chat pages were still
free, and the idea of his embarking on scientific critique in
public was irresistably seductive, if you know what I mean.
I have to tell you that in my preliminary investigations, I
came across about a half dozen web sites with more than the
usual number of spelling errors -- to put it politely -- that
faithfully echoed what seemed to be the line given in the
book. These were apparently puppets or satellites of Horowitz's
site, but lacked Horowitz's erudition. (He knows how to spell,
usually, even though that's probably considered French in the
Heartland.) So that may be where the story about the curious
spellings came from. These may have been corrected, or been
removed entirely by now, for all I know. Wish I'd saved them
for you.
The other thing that was notable was that they didn't understand
how science operates -- they treated it just as the mainstream
media do, as religious revelation, which is either absolutely
correct, and therefore Godly, or absolutely wrong, and therefore
from the Devil. Of course, in this case, there's the political
connection which reinforces the religious aspect. Chomsky,
it goes without saying, had to belong to the Devil's party.
Before you feel compelled to tell us, I am sure their are other
web sites where Chomsky's work is uncritically revered and
declared to hover four feet off the ground, emitting an orange
light and humming the Bhagavad Gita.
They don't have David Horowitz, though.
Oh, well. Onward.
.
|
|
|
| User: "zztop8970" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:10:20 PM |
|
|
"G*rd*n" <gcf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d6bi44$1jf$1@panix3.panix.com...
...
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com>:
...
Now look at my opponents: They first surmise that any criticism of
Chosmky's academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose
authors can't spell, and when presented with scholarly works that
reject Chomsky's theories, they dismiss them as "someone wrote a book
sometime". Tell me, who is displaying religions reverence and refusing
to evaluate contradictory evidence here?
I regret that I have omitted to study your contests with the
lovers of Uncle Noam, Mr. ZZ; for all I know, they are a bunch
of crazed fanatics who regard him as the Second Coming of
Christ.
You are not required to study all my contests with unnamed lovers of Uncle
Noam. You are merely asked to opine on this thread, which you've obviously
read.
In this thred, a certain Bilbo surmises that any criticism of Chosmky's
academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose authors can't spell,
and when presented with scholarly works that reject Chomsky's theories,
dismissed them as "someone wrote a book sometime". Tell me, who is
displaying religions reverence and refusing to evaluate contradictory
evidence here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:24:22 PM |
|
|
...
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com>:
...
Now look at my opponents: They first surmise that any criticism of
Chosmky's academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose
authors can't spell, and when presented with scholarly works that
reject Chomsky's theories, they dismiss them as "someone wrote a book
sometime". Tell me, who is displaying religions reverence and refusing
to evaluate contradictory evidence here?
"G*rd*n" <gcf@panix.com>:
I regret that I have omitted to study your contests with the
lovers of Uncle Noam, Mr. ZZ; for all I know, they are a bunch
of crazed fanatics who regard him as the Second Coming of
Christ.
"zztop8970" <none@tospeakof.com>:
You are not required to study all my contests with unnamed lovers of Uncle
Noam. You are merely asked to opine on this thread, which you've obviously
read.
Just because I comment on something doesn't mean I've read
it. Remember where you're reading this.
"zztop8970" <none@tospeakof.com>:
In this thred, a certain Bilbo surmises that any criticism of Chosmky's
academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose authors can't spell,
and when presented with scholarly works that reject Chomsky's theories,
dismissed them as "someone wrote a book sometime". Tell me, who is
displaying religions reverence and refusing to evaluate contradictory
evidence here?
I suspect he was speaking hyperbolically and quite possibly
in jest. I suspect he knows that at least a few critics of
Noam Chomsky can spell, more or less. Look a David
Horowitz -- he, or someone he hired, spelled a whole bookful
of words correctly.
But as to the books, as I pointed out far, far back in this
"controversy", there were hundreds of scientists way back when
who published claims that Einstein was wrong. Now there are
only a few dozen, and they're all on the Net.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
18 May 2005 08:34:30 PM |
|
|
In article <d6bo56$45f$1@reader1.panix.com>, G*rd*n said...
I suspect he knows that at least a few critics of
Noam Chomsky can spell, more or less. Look a David
Horowitz -- he, or someone he hired, spelled a whole bookful
of words correctly.
Horowitz would be far better served by hiring a fact-checker
instead of an orthographist. ;-)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Chomsky the Ba'athist |
16 May 2005 10:53:24 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <d6bo56$45f$1@reader1.panix.com>, G*rd*n pirouetted
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
...
"zztop8970" <zztop8970@yahoo.com>:
...
Now look at my opponents: They first surmise that any criticism of
Chosmky's academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose
authors can't spell, and when presented with scholarly works that
reject Chomsky's theories, they dismiss them as "someone wrote a
book sometime". Tell me, who is displaying religions reverence and
refusing to evaluate contradictory evidence here?
"G*rd*n" <gcf@panix.com>:
I regret that I have omitted to study your contests with the lovers of
Uncle Noam, Mr. ZZ; for all I know, they are a bunch of crazed
fanatics who regard him as the Second Coming of Christ.
"zztop8970" <none@tospeakof.com>:
You are not required to study all my contests with unnamed lovers of
Uncle Noam. You are merely asked to opine on this thread, which you've
obviously read.
Just because I comment on something doesn't mean I've read it. Remember
where you're reading this.
"zztop8970" <none@tospeakof.com>:
In this thred, a certain Bilbo surmises that any criticism of Chosmky's
academic work must be limited to right-wing blogs whose authors can't
spell, and when presented with scholarly works that reject Chomsky's
theories, dismissed them as "someone wrote a book sometime". Tell me,
who is displaying religions reverence and refusing to evaluate
contradictory evidence here?
I suspect he was speaking hyperbolically and quite possibly in jest.
And you suspect correctly.
I
suspect he knows that at least a few critics of Noam Chomsky can spell,
more or less.
Not to mention the current poster is dishonestly ignoring that the comment
I was responding to was that Chomsky's work in linguistics is "now
discredited." Which is not at all the same thing as saying "criticized."
Anyone who can make the sweeping--and very incorrect--comment that
Chomsky's body of work in linguistics has been "discredited" probably
found the idea on some whack job right wing weblog. He sure as hell wasn't
reading anything in the field.
Look a David Horowitz -- he, or someone he hired, spelled a
whole bookful of words correctly.
But as to the books, as I pointed out far, far back in this "controversy",
there were hundreds of scientists way back when who published claims that
Einstein was wrong. Now there are only a few dozen, and they're all on
the Net.
I used to love running across those back in the days when I worked in the
library at my university...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
