18 It's not that I would ever seek to spare any criticism of American Imperialism or Israeli civil injustice or much anything else. Although, indeed, many agendas can inspire anti-Chomsky sentiment, because Chomsky is such a perfect straw man, never the less, no ulterior agenda is required for revulsion with Chomsky. One only need yearn for all that Chomsky pretends to champion, but actually sabotages, undermines and misdirects at every turn. One need only admit the possible value of progress whatsoever, except as sinister diversionary ploy in forestalling the revolution. One only need value democracy at all, to reject the depraved indifference and brutal paternalism romanticized by Saint Noam the Liar. Chomsky never met a brutal Communist tyrant he didn't like. Chomsky is peace loving in the way that the enemy always is, according to Clausewitz, that is to say, because they generally prefer to advance unopposed. Chomsky is the fanatical tool and running dog of Totalitarianism.

19 Hairy Beard said a lot. All of it nonsense, secondhand, lies which he's lifted from Oliver Kamm's site so that he wouldn't have to read for himself. What's new in the fairytale world of the anti-Chomsyites? Nothing worth commenting on. Actually, I already have, but "Harry" keeps running and hiding just as all good anti-Chomskyites do who can't make an argument because they haven't studied the subject.KB And Aaron said: "It's not that I would ever seek to spare any criticism of American Imperialism or Israeli civil injustice or much anything else." Nice intro. sentence. It almost gives the reader that you, too, are a critic of U.S. policy, but have a more refined understanding. NOT! All anti-Chomskyites use this tactic. And then when asked about those crimes which the U.S. commits they fumble around and can't give any. Or, they give them followed by the usual apologetics.KB "Although, indeed, many agendas can inspire anti-Chomsky sentiment," This means nothing and is empty of content. What are you talking about specifically?KB "because Chomsky is such a perfect straw man, never the less, no ulterior agenda is required for revulsion with Chomsky." Nothing but opinion. No information.KB "One only need yearn for all that Chomsky pretends to champion, but actually sabotages, undermines and misdirects at every turn." Nothing but opinion. No evidence.KB "One need only admit the possible value of progress whatsoever, except as sinister diversionary ploy in forestalling the revolution." Nothing but opinion. No evidence.KB "One only need value democracy at all, to reject the depraved indifference and brutal paternalism romanticized by Saint Noam the Liar." Nothing but lameass opinion. No evidence.KB "Chomsky never met a brutal Communist tyrant he didn't like." Opinion. No evidence.KB "Chomsky is peace loving in the way that the enemy always is, according to Clausewitz, that is to say, because they generally prefer to advance unopposed." Oh, yes, Clausewitz is the man. "On War"? Anyway, nothing but opinion again. Were you ever going to make an argument, or just scream from the bleachers like a whiny conservative wimp?KB "Chomsky is the fanatical tool and running dog of Totalitarianism." Wow! You're tough. Nothing but opinion. No evidence.KB So, what do we have here? We have Aaron, in typical anti-Chomskyan fashion, offering NO information, NO evidence, the usual lies, NOTHING to learn from, and, well, basically just a bunch of little black scribbles on a page with no meaning. And if anyone thinks they see more than this, they too need help. There are names for folks like Aaron, and charletan is the first one that comes to mind. Come back when you have some information which hasn't been lifted from others like yourself you have lifted it from others like yourself.............KB

20 As to the caution of Clausewitz, as applied to Chomsky, remember the Paris Peace talks? As for evidence supporting the rest, have you been following this thread? I am but offering a summation, As for Chomsky trotted out and thrashed as a straw man, sorry, no citations handy. But I have certainly seen it. Is that actually hard to believe? Now, when I offer statement my own position, which you then call a tactic, do you actually disbelieve me? Where are your citations that I am other than as I represent myself, politically? Can no one disagree with Chomsky without being absolutely rabid villains? If I said I like eating pizza, would you demand a witness? Argue with me if you can, but just as you say I lack evidence, I say you lack argument! And that the little what I've said is reasonable and rational, and supported by the simplest logic. What I say is meaningful, linguistically. But most your tactic has been you pretend that what I said is not linguistically meaningful because it's not footnoted. That it does not mean what it says, or that you lack the wit to see. And that isn't clever, indeed, it amounts to playing stupid. I've put a together few words, simply enough, after all of the annotation of Chomsky's lies continue to pile up. But, when all is said and done, you couldn't smell the stink of your own shit, unless the odor was footnoted and annotated. But not even then. Because, just as on this very page, when you get the evidence you demand, it's sheer volume and the convolutions detailed become unmanageable and you use the sheer confusion you make diversionary tactics long enough to pretend to forget and then demand the evidence all over again! What a colossal waste of time and devotion that might actually ever go to real investigation and analysis. The Paranormalists are not half so devious and dishonest as Chomskyites! You are liars worshipping a liar! And the higher cause served is the worst of lies. I've had to give up on activism, having scarcely started! I despise your crypto fascist Chomsky fifth column worse than the cult of Lyndon Larouche, for the sheer pervasiveness of Chomsky's shadow, and the obstruction not merely of all moderation but worse, of all ingenuity, and for all the endless Chinese fire drills preventing real grass roots political action. Which I submit is actually by design, a) to glorify Chomsky without the distraction of empowering anyone else and b) to undermine any accomplishment of popular uprising, large or small, and preserve Chomsky's sycophantic misanthropic Paternalist ulterior agenda. Honestly, I just can't understand the sheer evil. I wonder if anyone has attempted to psychoanalyze Chomsky's hypocritical utter depraved sociopathy. I beg you, liberate yourself from Chomsky.

21 Aaron said: "As to the caution of Clausewitz, as applied to Chomsky, remember the Paris Peace talks?" Yeah, so?KB "As for evidence supporting the rest, have you been following this thread?" Yeah, so?KB "I am but offering a summation" That's all anti-Chomskyites ever offer.KB "As for Chomsky trotted out and thrashed as a straw man, sorry, no citations handy." Nor would there be. One would have actually have had to read him and know his positions in order to identify when the straw was being harvested. If one does know his positions it takes all of 10 seconds to identify.KB "But I have certainly seen it. Is that actually hard to believe?" Not really. It's not hard to believe that folks who are thorougly indoctrinated would hear information which doesn't fit into their belief system and go into convulsions. It's quite predictable.KB "Now, when I offer statement my own position, which you then call a tactic, do you actually disbelieve me?" It depaends on what you're saying. If you say that your name is Aaron, I may believe you. If you say something absurd about Chomsky which anyone who had read even a paragraph of one of his books could easily identify as nonsense, then I can assume that you're using a tactic called lying. It's quite common among the fanatical right. But what's really interesting is that they don't even realize they're doing it.KB "Where are your citations that I am other than as I represent myself, politically?" Where have you represented yourself? Where have I miss stated your position?KB "Can no one disagree with Chomsky without being absolutely rabid villains?" Sure they can. However, they have to know what they're talking about BEFORE they try to do it. You simply don't. Neither do most anti-Chomskyites. I could care less if you disagreed with every position Chomsky has made since birth, but you must know what they are first. It's quite a simple concept. For instance, if you say that he's a Pol Pot apologist, then you simply do not have the correct information. He's not now, nor has ever been anything close. If anything he points out how the U.S. government was the big Khmer Rouge supporter. So, basically, if you even think about making any "argument" which even infers this absurd notion, it simply means that you don't know what you're talking about. May as well talk about UFOs.KB "If I said I like eating pizza, would you demand a witness?" Not at all. But if you said that Chomsky disliked pizza, based on nothing but secondhand gossip, you had no proof, you had never asked him, etc....then things may be different.KB "Argue with me if you can, but just as you say I lack evidence, I say you lack argument!" You can say whatever you want, but it doesn't mean anything if there's no substance. Just to argue about a topic of which you're not even aware of the position of the subject of the argument is ridiculous. If I knew all there was to know about Einstein, and you were only aware that he was some famous guy, would you try to argue about his positions on everything? An intelligent person wouldn't. They'd keep their mouths shut until they had studied the subject thorougly, knew every position Chomsky held inside and out, and THEN made their argument. I mean, you can take some statement out of context and scream about what you think it means when it rubs you the wrong way, but you should at least be honest enough to say "Well, I really don't know his position because I've never read one of his books, but I find this statement questionable because...." What you don't do is to take a statement, run with it, project all of your indoctrinated mis-perceptions into it, and think you therefore know the subject. You don't.KB "And that the little what I've said is reasonable and rational, and supported by the simplest logic." No, it isn't. But if you believe that you have made some sort of "logical" point I'm willing to wait for you to point it out again.KB "What I say is meaningful, linguistically." And I'm sure you believe it is.KB "But most your tactic has been you pretend that what I said is not linguistically meaningful because it's not footnoted." Listen, I don't expect fiction to be footnoted. But if you're planning on trying to challenge someones views and positions you should at least be honest enough to show how you came to your conclusions. Simply reading the Runes will hardly surfice.KB "That it does not mean what it says, or that you lack the wit to see." Yes, you're too witty for me. That's it. Snore...KB "And that isn't clever, indeed, it amounts to playing stupid." I don't think you're "playing stupid". I think you're sincere in your stupidity.KB "I've put a together few words, simply enough, after all of the annotation of Chomsky's lies continue to pile up." Once again, a charge with nothing to back it up. Now I could easily show the pile of Aaron lies piling up. Actually, I already have.KB "But, when all is said and done, you couldn't smell the stink of your own shit, unless the odor was footnoted and annotated." Meaninless evasion. If you can't back up what you say, shut the hell up and quit preaching nonsense. Perhaps you can get a job on any number of the corporate-controlled network stations, as they're always looking for a few 'experts in legitimation'.KB "But not even then." It would be a start.KB "Because, just as on this very page, when you get the evidence you demand, it's sheer volume and the convolutions detailed become unmanageable and you use the sheer confusion you make diversionary tactics long enough to pretend to forget and then demand the evidence all over again!" That's because there is nothing there. All of the compiled nonsense above is nothing more than a collection of the straw which others have been producing over the years. As a matter of fact, most of the things presented above by "Harry Beard" weren't even up to date strawmen. Nothin in the passage above proved anything. Perhaps it impressed you because of it's length, but I can copy and paste hundreds of pages from people who also say they've sen Big Foot. Would this make my argument about Big Foots non-existence any less valid?KB "What a colossal waste of time and devotion that might actually ever go to real investigation and analysis." Not at all. And if there was anything resembling "real investigation and analysis" it hasn't been presented here at all. If there was anything resembling invstigation and analysis the write wouldn't have dedicated himself to many paragraphs of straw with ZERO backing. He would have first been aware of Chomsky's positions and then challenged them. Step one was never even taken. Therefore, everything which follows is nothing more than hot air. It's really not that complicated of a concept, at least for folks who have at least passed kindergarten.KB "The Paranormalists are not half so devious and dishonest as Chomskyites!" Well, I guess this is all the evidence and proof I needed. All I needed was YOUR own paranormal assertion. YOU, having made the charges without any backing, and a hostility toward evidence, of course, are the one who is dishonest. But don't worry, this is part of what makes you an anti-Chomskyite.KB "You are liars worshipping a liar!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. And you've surely proven it here. I don't know anyone who worships Chomsky. But that you would make that assertion based on the fact that there are a few people who actually know what his positions are, and can easily identify the real liars when they see them, says a lot about you, charletan.KB "And the higher cause served is the worst of lies." Yes, we all know. It's much better just to serve no higher cause and try and be as bad as possible. This is he conservative approach. I mean the new and depraved conservative approach. Not the real ones from earlier days.KB "I've had to give up on activism, having scarcely started!" What were you active in? Sending aid to terrorists like the contras? Helping send funds to Saddam for years? Helping the democratic Saudi government?KB "I despise your crypto fascist Chomsky fifth column worse than the cult of Lyndon Larouche" Oh, I'm sure you do. Just as when folks first heard some charletan claiming the world was round for the first time. It's understandable. But there's still time for you to be educated before you die. Maybe?KB "for the sheer pervasiveness of Chomsky's shadow, and the obstruction not merely of all moderation but worse, of all ingenuity, and for all the endless Chinese fire drills preventing real grass roots political action." Yes, Chomsky's been hostile to grass roots political action his entire career. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry. But you've just proven my point for me again. I mean, your simply not having a clue as to any of his positions. Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable on a UFO Abduction blog, or an Elvis is Alive and Hiding with Big Foot in the White House blog?KB "Which I submit" Your first mistake.KB "is actually by design" Your second mistake. Sounds a little like some old cold war propaganda paranoia that the Russians are coming.KB "a) to glorify Chomsky without the distraction of empowering anyone else" Who cares anything about glorifying Chomsky? Just because someone points out that you don't know what you're talking about regarding his work and someone elase does doesn't mean the person who does is glorifying him. Not at all. And who gives a rats ass about "empowering anyone else". If they want to know what Chomsky's though is so that they can become empowered, at least with the knowledge that they know his positions, then that's their job to read and learn.KB "b) to undermine any accomplishment of popular uprising, large or small," That's odd given that the accomplishments of popular uprisings are some of Chomsky's favorite topics and that he encourages people to become active and make these accomplishes happen. Actually, he's more critical of the folks who don't do anything. So, see, once again you've inferred that you know a position of his when you don't, and this time your inference was diametrically opposed to his actual position. Please save yourself from further public humiliation in the future by studying the topic first.KB "and preserve Chomsky's sycophantic misanthropic Paternalist ulterior agenda." Yes, he really has an "ulterior agenda", unlike the rightwing fanatics who are taking over not only the country, but the world it appears. Anyway, this is just more of the residue of the old cold war propaganda which had long infected your mind. Guess what, Aaron? The Russians aren't coming. Never were.KB "Honestly, I just can't understand the sheer evil." I'm sure you can't. It's because you have "the truth" on your side, as can be seen in most of your comments thus far.KB "I wonder if anyone has attempted to psychoanalyze Chomsky's hypocritical utter depraved sociopathy." Probably not because they recognize that it doesn't exist. On the other hand, your pathology is quite easily identifiable. I would recommend a labotomy, but it seems as though someone has beat me to the punch.KB "I beg you" Get off you knees, fool.KB "liberate yourself from Chomsky." There's nothing to liberate myself from. You're the one writing nonsense about a topic of which you know nothing. This shows a far more severe pathology than does the simple fact that a person has actually read some of his books and actually knows what his positions are. Quite worrying about my soul and go dip yourself in the river.KB

22 There is the one point where our disagreement may actually cone as any surprise: To assert, as you do, that should Chomsky ever be made a straw man, this cannot be ascertained without intimate scholarship, chapter and verse sublime, is rather to suggest that if the Neocons haven't got Chomsky dead to rights, then at least they might be speaking to the point! Astonishing! Eerie! And without being Chomsky scholars. Or are they, perhaps, Chomsky scholars on the sly, in the deep dark secret of their sinister cabal? And why not? Can theirs ever be so much less anal than yours? Now, frankly, I'd be more impressed if you can spout Homer, all on your own, than Chomsky. And, say, Bucky Fuller might simply be more fun. The truth remains that no one can fulfill the heights of scholarly rigor on everything anyone ever accepted, opines or believes. And if we did, we'd never consult others or learn from experience or ever smell the roses. Your austere demands of all and sundry of immersive involvement with Chomsky specifically and particularly are, indeed, nigh cultic. Chomsky is well debunked from the public record. I don't seek credit for that. Epistemologically, Methodologically, it matters not one wit that the work is not mine. The evidence stands damning against Chomsky from the aforesaid public record. I need not repeat the work any more than to re-chart the Americas from scratch. That pompous dodge fools no one. I do know what I am talking about, because it's no damn secret! You have not refuted any of it, KB, nor even advanced any counter argument, by what amounts to the particularly silly Ad Hominem that I don't sweat out my own footnotes. Erich Von Daniken has got nothing on you for sheer denial! And so, speaking of straw men, I certainly hope that my self knowledge will be scholarly enough for you, for me to hazard such an evaluation, because I find myself cast in the role of straw man by you, KB. Indeed, KB, why are you answering me and not Hairy Beard who actually recited for you double barreled scholarship, incisive and comprehensive chapter and verse, all on his own lonesome, just as you demand it! Yes, Hairy Beard's response is convincing to a layperson, so to speak, as myself. And why shouldn't it be? You've not rebutted a line of it, KB! Then again, the link lists I've already supplied are sufficiently damning. Chomsky's disgrace is a matter of pubic record. Not one jot of it addressed or rebutted, much less refuted, by the likes of you, KB. But then your silly lists of supposed anti-Chomsky talking points is as fallacious a straw man as ever danced down the yellow brick rood of sheer wearisome Sophistry! And so, KB, no more annotation for you, until you've finished what is already on your plate! What are you going to do, complain to the chef and send it back to the kitchen? No stomach for reality? Your turn for diligence, KB. The ball remains in your court, where it has lain moldering all along.

23 Aaron said: "There is the one point where our disagreement may actually cone as any surprise" No.KB "To assert, as you do, that should Chomsky ever be made a straw man, this cannot be ascertained without intimate scholarship, chapter and verse sublime, is rather to suggest that if the Neocons haven't got Chomsky dead to rights, then at least they might be speaking to the point!" But they are not speaking to the point. That's the point.KB "Astonishing! Eerie!" I agree. Why the hell would they be talking about a subject as if they knew what they were talking about when they obviously don't? If I were to go to some Einstein blog which was filled with a bunch of physicists and began trying to argue, "seriously", about a topic of which I knew little to nothing, what would it say about me? You're correct. This is scary.KB "And without being Chomsky scholars." Okay, well, anyone can read a sentence and them make some sort of very uninformed and limited statement based on the one sentence, but it doesn't mean that their statement has anything at al to do with the writer's thesis, opinions, or anything else. It's simply an uninformed statement. The concept is quite simple. If you don't study about something, then it's probably safe to say that you don't know much about it. Are you trying to argue otherwise?KB "Or are they, perhaps, Chomsky scholars on the sly" That's an easy one. No, they are not. And it can be seen in most everything they write. That's why I write anti-anti-Chomskyite satires. I take the recurrent pathological themes which they display, such as talking about Chomsky without knowing anything about him, and point them out. It's quite easy to see the responses from those folks who are aware of his works versus those who do not. The points simply fly right by the anti-Chomskyites. It's like trying to have an elementary school child analyze 'Deconstructing Harry', but worse.KB "in the deep dark secret of their sinister cabal?" I doubt that there's a cabal. That they're sinister is hardly in question.KB "And why not? Can theirs ever be so much less anal than yours?" Yes.KB "Now, frankly, I'd be more impressed if you can spout Homer, all on your own, than Chomsky" Yes, well, actually, I can. I can also spout several hundred other folks which may impress my philosophy teachers, or undergrads, and try to sound smart. I'm not talking about Homer, nor do I intend to avoid the topic by doing so now.KB "And, say, Bucky Fuller might simply be more fun." I doubt it. But if he were the topic then it would probably be a good idea. Trouble is, he's not.KB "The truth remains that no one can fulfill the heights of scholarly rigor on everything anyone ever accepted, opines or believes." Nor should they. They also shouldn't talk about the topic if they don't know what they're talking about, or at least be honest and make some sort of qualifying statement such as "Well, I've only read one or two sentences of his myself, and a few opinions on FrontPage Magazine, but given that this is all I know it seems that what Chomsky might be saying is....." It should also be followed by an "I could be completely wrong about many or most of my statements regarding Chomsky and his positions because my statements have been based on little more than hearsay and reading two sentences." At least I would respect the persons honesty. But when you get frothing at the mouth born-agains, or perhaps, born for-the-first-times, on time and time again screaming that Chomsky's a Stalinist, even though anyone who has studied for more than 10 minutes knows that he's been anti-communist since 11 years old, well, they deserve to be bitchslapped.KB "And if we did, we'd never consult others or learn from experience or ever smell the roses." I agree. And that's why the anti-Chomskyites should keep their mouths shut until they know a little about the topic of which they're talking about. Unfortunately, due to their preconceived notions, assumptions, and indoctrination, rational discussion rarely arises. Evidence, not matter how abundant, won't scratch the surface because they're not making arguments from a rational position. They're making arguments from positions of faith.KB "Your austere demands of all and sundry of immersive involvement with Chomsky specifically and particularly are, indeed, nigh cultic." So it's cultic, another charge of which I've written satires about the lunacy of, to actually know a topic and point out when someone doesn't? That I know enough of his works to be able to tell within about 15 seconds whether or not this person has ever read a word is cultic? That's odd. I thought it was considered knowing the topic and being intelligent. When I went to school we had to learn topics first and then we knew about them. Channeling wasn't popular then though. Is this your approach? Personally, I think it's cultic that folks would even attempt to keep harping on a subject of which they know little to nothing as if they do when they don't. This shows a far more severe pathology than does ones simply knowing the topic. I mean, if there was a group of guys going around constantly talking about how Einstein was really a black catholic woman, who had never gone to school, and often saw Elvis and Big Foot flying around in a UFO, I would consider this cultic and pathological. So, when I read about 99% of these anti-Chomskyites comments, this is basically what it sounds like. Not only are most of their statements incorrect, but many are the exact opposite of the truth. This is cultic.KB "Chomsky is well debunked from the public record." No, he isn't. I've been studying him for twenty years and haven't seen any "debunking" at all. I've seen mostly weak attempts by folks who are the extremists of the cult which I just mentioned, and some of them have actually read a passage or two from maybe one of his books, but their insights are not much different than those who haven't read him at all. In a way they're even more pathetic because they have tried to read him and completely interpret much of what he says incorrectly, as has been demonstrated most every time they've opened their mouths. Why? Simple. Due to their already indoctrinated perceptions when they read they interpret sentences in ways which are incorrect. And it's so extreme in some cases that even when something is pointed out, something so basic and fundamental as, say, Chomsky says that he's never been a communist and has never really cared for Marx, etc...they can read the words and turn around in the next sentence and call him a communist because their indoctrination is so great that they con't even think in any other terms. And then even when this is pointed out, their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they either drop the subject completely, memory hole, or they go on talking as if what you've shown has never existed. I'm afraid that these are serious signs of cultic personalities. So, before you unwittingly propagate your lies, or perhaps ignorance, and make casual comments like the one above, you should have the decency to back up what you say based on a thorough study of the subject, not just a compilation of all of the strawmen, redd herrings, lies, etc...which other true believers have perpetuated. Hey, listen guy, I'm trying to do you a favor by telling you this. I'm trying to keep you from making any more of a fool of yourself. Why? Because if you don't try and extract yourself from the anti-Chomsky cult, what will happen is that you'll move onto the next stage, which my satires also cover, which is that if you actually did decide to study the topic for yourself instead of via secondhand incorrect sources, and start seeing that all of these folks who you had been previously depending on for your information were completely off, you'll be put in the uncomfortable position of having to make two choices. One, is that you'll recognize that most of what you had been saying was nonsense and mere rubbish, and wonder why you had allowed yourself to be suckered in by such charletans like Horowitz, Kamm, DeLong, etc...all jokes, by the way, become honest, and admit that you had been a dumbass. The decision to take this honorable path is rarely taken. Mostly, the second path is taken. This path is that you do see that you've been wrong all along, but given that you've already dug a hole deep enough to reach China with your uninformed and juvenile statements, you have to keep standing by them. Now this is hard to do because most people, even anti-Chomskyites, have enough of a conscience for the continuation of the lying not to bother them. So, what they do is to make themselves believe what they had been saying was true, even though in the back of their minds they know on some level thay're lying. This is a common occurance during the development of belief formation. Perhaps you should study about it sometime. Anyway, when they continue with their "comments" which are being filtered through this mechanism, you get predictable and observable responses, such as the cognitive dissonance, projections right and left, denial, memory hole, and many other symptoms.KB "I don't seek credit for that." Nor should you as there is nothing to credit.KB "Epistemologically, Methodologically, it matters not one wit that the work is not mine." It absolutely matters if you aren't aware that what you've been saying has nothing to do with reality, unless it doesn't bother you to be factually wrong about the statements which you're making while trying to sound as though you know what you're talking about. Basically, you're doing little more than propagating the Einstein is a black Catholic woman analogy from above. Nothing more. I advise you to read his books for yourself, THEN, if you want to come back and try and make a reasonable argument or challenge then that's fine. You might accidentally get him on something. But you're going to have to know what his positions are in the first place. Rarely does this initial step even take place, another theme of the satires. This is why most arguments I've seen over the years usually go nowhere. You have one person who knows his work thoroughly, can easily identify when mistakes are made by the others, etc...trying to debate guys who have no clue what they're talking about, and often even pride themselves on the fact that they've never read one of his books in a weak attempt at trying to prove their point. What would you think would happen? Those you haven't a clue resort to their usual predictable antics, such as calling the knowledgeable folks "cults", "anti-American", and the rest of the nonsense.KB "The evidence stands damning against Chomsky from the aforesaid public record." No, it doesn't. And you have proven nothing other than you know how to copy and paste small out of context passages from others who haven't read him, or have only read him enough to get enough of an impression to jump to their incorrect conclusions. There is no evidence damning against him. On the other hand, there is TONS of evidence to prove that the charletans and liars who put forth such notions are doing just that, lying. Either that or they're so ignorant that they really should demand a tuition refund and start over again. If you think you have evidence based on YOUR readings, then I'm happy to hear it. I'm quite familiar with the anti-Chomsky cult and have been for years. So, when you're lifting items from the various knucklheads and trying to make it seem as though these are your findings based on your research I know immediately. I can even tell you which guy you've taken it from, and probably the exact book, link, etc...Listen, I've been consciously studying this topic for years, and am quite well aware of both sides of the argument. Personally, I don't really care if you prove that every sentence that Chomsky's ever written is false, but you have to prove it in a scholarly way, and not by simply perpetuating mis-quotes, mis-perceptions, etc...made by a few frothing at the mouth folks who still haven't shaken off their paranoid anti-communism indoctrination from years ago. I can tell instantly if the ideas you state are yours based on your readings, or their's. Which do you choose? Learning for yourself, or being an unwitting mouthpiece for some guys who can't tell the difference between an anarchist, a communist, or a rock?KB "I need not repeat the work any more than to re-chart the Americas from scratch." Yes, you need not repeat. I've already read all of it. Long ago, I might add. Like I said, it means nothing other than you know how to use your copy and paste functions.KB "That pompous dodge fools no one." This is an example of the projection I mentioned earlier. It is neither pompous nor a dodge to make the statements I have. On the contrary, it's quite the opposite. This is also another theme of the satires. It's the old pompous- leftist whine and charge. And nothing I've said was intended to fool anyone. I've simply been pointing out why what you've attempted to do here fools no one, or, perhaps, a few others suffering from the anti-Chomskyan disorder.KB "I do know what I am talking about, because it's no damn secret!" I agree. It's no damn secret that what you're saying is about as reliable as the way you came to think it in the first place. You've never read one of his books, as is easy to tell, you've propagated the lies and faulty studies of others, as I predicted, not that a prediction was necessary, you've tried to cover it up by going to the even more extreme of claiming that everyone knows that Chomsky's full of crap, etc...All of these things show that your position is a joke and that you shouldn't be taken any more seriously than some newscaster from FOX TV.KB "You have not refuted any of it, KB" Oh, I have refuted every sentence you've lifted a hundred times. These are VERY OLD and VERY DISCREDITED "opinions". Most of the charges you've copied were never taken seriously by most people in the first place as they were so absurd, I mean, to those who actually knows a little about the topic. The statements about Pol Pot apologetics, Holocaustdenial, etc...are simply jokes manufactured by illiterate imbeciles. Nothing more. What's really odd is that some of them, very few, have actually gone through graduate school. On would have thought that given this fact that they'd at least know a little about how to read and interpret simple sentences. I guess the education system really is in decline.KB "nor even advanced any counter argument" Mostly there's nothing to argue about since almost everything you've presented doesn't even exist as a topic. Should I respond and give counter arguments to the fact that Einstein isn't a black Catholic woman, too? There is basicall ZERO difference here. The entire premise of the arguments are faulty and don't exist. How can I prove a negative?(Another common theme in the anti-Chomsyan fantasy world) Okay, here you go. I've read everything Chomsky has written, which is true, and nothing you've asserted appears. And given that it isn't there, it's hard for my to copy and paste it." It is easy to point out to the anti-Chomsky cult their lies, but it doesn't go anywhere. That's why I quit trying to be logical, rational, etc...when talking to them. It usually does no good, though I have recently met a chap civilized and honest enough to have actually read some of Chomsky for himeslf, and was honest and intelligent enough to admit that virtually none of the anti-Chomsyites which had been bickering with us knew what they were talking about. And this was only after reading some links from the web, not even any books. So, I guess you guys aren't completely hopeless.KB "by what amounts to the particularly silly Ad Hominem that I don't sweat out my own footnotes." There are no footnotes to support your opinions. On the other hand, Chomsky has provided thousands of which you can check if you feel that you want to learn something about the topic.KB "Erich Von Daniken has got nothing on you for sheer denial!" And yet another example of the projection previously noted. Were you ever going to read a Chomsky book for yourself, or were just going to assert that the folks who have are in denial for the rest of your life?KB "And so, speaking of straw men, I certainly hope that my self knowledge will be scholarly enough for you" Sorry, it's not. You haven't even taken the first step to anything scholarly. Copying and pasting the works of others, while maybe impressive to a high school history teacher, says nothing about your knowledge. It is telling thougfh as to why folks such as yourself pick out the passages that you decide to quote. This is much more interesting. I'm much more interested in why it is that you would choose to attempt to talk about a subject which you obviously haven't even studied. I mean, if I were to write a doctoral dissertation on Chomsky and only used secondhand sources, never quoting Chomsky at all, what do you think the examoners would say? I think not having read Chomsky for myself would probably be a slight oversight. So, while you try pretend, in vain, of course, that it's not necessary to have to study the subject for yourself before you can claim to be knowledgable about it, I think you may want to reconsider your position.KB "for me to hazard such an evaluation, because I find myself cast in the role of straw man by you, KB." Yes, well, you have proven that there's much more straw in the world that I had ever imagined.KB "Indeed, KB, why are you answering me and not Hairy Beard who actually recited for you double barreled scholarship" He did nothing of the sort. He did exactly what I have just pointed out. He hasn't proven that he's ever read a book. I can get all of the info he posted in about 2 minutes on the web. But I guess you would consider that "double-barreled scholarship" when it's actually not even slingsshot scholarship.(The anti-Chomskyites idea of scholarship is another theme in my satires) Here, maybe I'll leave one for you below.KB "incisive and comprehensive chapter and verse, all on his own lonesome, just as you demand it!" Not hardly. Nothing he said was on his own. The only thing on his own was that he copied and pasted. You actually thought that he did this himself? That's funny. You're not even a good anti-Chomskyite. That's sad. Do you REALLY think I was unfamiliar with every sentence he copied? You're really, really, far behind. Guess what, Aaron? Santa doesn't exist.KB "Yes, Hairy Beard's response is convincing to a layperson, so to speak, as myself." As it's supposed to be. That's the entire point. That's how these charletans work. They know full well that you are probably not going to read Chomsky for yourself for whatever reason, and that you'll be impressed with what "seems" like well thoughout scholarship, which it doesn't even scratch the surface. They're quite well aware that those who have a rightward tilt will just believe what they say, begin repeating it, etc...without knowing what they're talking about. Their goal is to keep you from reading. Why? Because if you read and studied the subject for yourself you'd instantly see how full of shit they were. Their goal by trying to "appear scholarly" is to keep you from taking that step.(Another theme in the satires) Hey, like I said, I've been doing this for years. I know these guys better than they know themselves, at least regarding this issue. I have a friend who's somehow anti-Chomsky though proudly admits that he's never read a Chomsky book, and would never do so. And yet he writes endlessly about Chomsky's ideas. Do you not see how pathological this is? If this were anyone else would you still think it okay? I don't thinky you're that far gone.KB "And why shouldn't it be?" Oh, it should be. It should be so convincing, in fact, that you won't even find it necessary to read Chomsky for yourself. That's part of the point. Answer me a few questions: Has it worked? Have you actually decided to go out and read a few, or more, of Chomsky's books? Or do you feel that since he's given you this stuff which appears to be "knowledge" that it's not necessary? I will bet you a copy of 'SuperSize ME' on DVD that's it's the latter. Don't be so gullible. And while you may have political leanings to the right it should prevent you from trying to be honest and studying the subject for yourself. As I said, I could care less if you agree with one idea Chomsky has ever stated, but if you're going to talk about him, seriously anyway, you should at least make a good faith attempt at studying the subject for yourself, so that you don't unwittingly propegate lies.KB "You've not rebutted a line of it, KB!" That because there's nothing to rebutt. There's nothing there. He's talking about Sants Claus. And there are plently of places to find where these things have been rebutted for years. I'm NOT going to do your work for you. All what will happen, and this is based on years of experience, is nothing. If you want to know for yourself, YOU are going to have to read for yourself. AFTER you have done this, then we can have a conversation.KB "Then again, the link lists I've already supplied are sufficiently damning." You've proven my point again. The links are nothing but the nonsense I've already spoken of. Remember, if you haven't read it for yourself, you will never know. And that's their goal. They don't want you to read. And it's working, isn't it? I'm not interested in their propaganda, I'm interested in what you think about the subject. Therefore, I will only respond to what YOU read and share. NOT what they supposedly "read" and lie about.KB "Chomsky's disgrace is a matter of pubic record." See? Look at what you're doing right now. You are making an assertion about a person of whom you've never read a book. That the anti-Chomsyites can get you to do this shows at the least that they're at least a little clever. The "public record" you speak of are these guys. The record which they put forth has nothingto do with the real world. But the only way you're going to know for sure is if you study the subject for yourself. As a matter of fact, it should also be noted that another of their goals is to so influence your perception before you actually read, which they know you probably won't, that even if you finally do read you won't be able to be anywhere near objective. You'll interpret things the way they've already trained you to. It's an old propaganda strategy. Keep saying that that a circle is a square long anough and the people will actually start to believe it. This is EXACTLY what is happening here. Tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me that you've read him for yourself, outside of the influence of these liars, or at least idiots, to give them the benefit of the doubt. You haven't. I know it, and you know it. It's always the same. As a matter of fact, I can probably guess how you will respond to every statement I've made because you guys are so predictable. Please try and be a little different. Just read a few books. Don't worry, you don't have to buy them. There are several on the web I believe. Necessary Illusions is a good one. If you're serious and you decide to really educated yourself I'll make some recommendations. Then, after you've studied these, I think you'll be able to make some sort of argument. Until then, you'll be nothing but sputtering out their mis-perceptions.KB "Not one jot of it addressed or rebutted, much less refuted, by the likes of you, KB." Been there, done that, 500 times. Here, let's play a little game. You try to find information to rebutt what they say. Pretend you don't automatically believe what they say, and rebutt them. How are you going to go about doing this? I have enough data to squash Harry's fairytale with one click of the button, but I want YOU to find it. THIS is an important part. This is not an evasion, which is one of the things I predicted you would say. This is a vital part of the learning process. I can take on Harry. I've done it with his likes for years, and I know exactly where it goes. And I also know that it prevents you from doing your own work. All you will do is to continue to depend on Harry to do the work for you, all the while not realizing that every other word from his mouth is a lie. YOU have to do the work. Then we can dual.KB "But then your silly lists of supposed anti-Chomsky talking points is as fallacious a straw man as ever danced down the yellow brick rood of sheer wearisome Sophistry!" You're funny. You've just proven several ofmy points again and you're completely oblivious as to how. Have you read a Chomsky book yet?KB "And so, KB, no more annotation for you, until you've finished what is already on your plate!" There's nothing on my plate. The plate is empty. There's nothing to respond to that I and a thousand others haven't already responded to for years. You can find responses to these fairytales anywhere if you want to actually study them. I have a really radical idea. why don't you ask Chomsky directly. He'll probably write back. I got two mails from him a couple of weeks ago. What's wrong? Are you scared? Why don't you ask Harry, since you're impressed by his copy and pasting, if he has challenged Chomsky instead of screaming "good shot" from the bleachers of a football game? He's a coward. That's why. They're all the same. This is why I no longer get into 400 page debates with these guys. I've already been there and done that, and I could care less if you believe me, or say that this is an evasion. Everything I've mentioned is accurate and the only way foryou to know for sure is if you study it for yourself. I can make you some copies of any number of lectures if you prefer not to read the books. Give me your address and I'll send a box. I should warn you though, that you must really face your indoctrination first and decide whether or not you'll even be able to listen to a tape. Most of the anti-Chomskyans have been so indoctrinated that there's actually a physical aversion to listening to his voice and they can't do it. I know this fist hand. I sent a box of about 20 lectures to my anti-Chomsyite friend, the one who has never read one of his books and yet talks about him all the time, and he returned it un-opened. Talk about a severe case of indoctrination. I'd hate to think that I could ever get to the point where I couldn't listen to even the most absurd drunk off the street, you know, like Rush, Hannity, Coulter Buckley, etc... without going into convulsions. Remember the two options.KB "What are you going to do, complain to the chef and send it back to the kitchen?" I never got any food. There's nothing to send back. And the guy who you believe sent it to me from the kitchen is actually in the bathroom creating more of that which he's good at.KB "No stomach for reality?" Proving my point again, huh? You know what "reality" is now because of what Harry copied and pasted. That's all it took? You're pretty easy. But then again that's who usually falls hook, line, and sinker, for the propaganda. You probably actually though Saddam was a threat to the U.S., too, huh? Never mind. I know what you'll say. "Reality". AHAHAHAHAHA "Your turn for diligence, KB." Oh, my diligence has been around for years. I don't need anymore diligence. You need the diligence to study the topic for yourself instead of allowing Harry's copying and pasting do it for you. What's really funny, and I'm sure you are completely unaware, is that "Harry", whose real name isn't Harry, but he thinks that's a witty take off on my name, is someone who I know quite well. He's changed his name for this blog because I've already smasehed him a dozen times before in other places. His new strategy at impressing the impressionable is to use various names so that when his "ideas" have been debunked, as they have a hundred times, and as I've already done, the novices like yourself who come along won't know of his pathetic background. This is another of the common paths which you, too, will eventually end up taking if you dig the hole oflies deep enough so that you con't get out and are finally exposed. You have to use another name to hide behind. Why don't we ask Harry what the name/names is he usually goes by?KB "The ball remains in your court, where it has lain moldering all along." Sorry, but the ball is nowhere near my court. Until you have read the subject for yourself the ball is in your court. Harry offered no balls, as one would have expected. If I feel the urge, or decide you give you the priveledge of a few minutes more of my time, I may take just one of the many lies "Harry" has put forth and smash it into the ground. It still won't mean anything if you haven't studied for yourself. The ball is in your court. After you've studied I'll be more than happy to discuss whatever you want regarding Chomsky. But fisrt, you have to make an effort. And if you're thinking about just lifting more of what these guys have said and pretend you have read I will know in one minute, so don't even think about going there.KB ***Note to readers: Let's see which direction Aaron will choose. Will he take the weak-ass easy way out and say that I'm avoiding Harry. Or will he read for himself, come up with ideas for himself, make arguments for himself, defend his ideas for himself, and prove that he's at least attempting to be a scholar. If he chooses the latter I will respect him. If he chooses the former...well...I'll just have more material for my satires.

24 KB, we meet again. Dude, are you going through some sort of mid-life crisis or something? You're even more deranged than usual. Your preaching for the Chomsky religion has gotten more aggressive and confrontational in the last few months.

25 Andrew followed me to say: "KB, we meet again. Dude, are you going through some sort of mid-life crisis or something?" Why would talking to indoctrinated totalitarian-minded pseudo-patriots be a sign of a mid-life crisis?KB "You're even more deranged than usual." Well, if YOU say so it MUST be true.KB "Your preaching for the Chomsky religion has gotten more aggressive and confrontational in the last few months." What preaching? What religion? You thinking that you see any preaching or religion is what's interesting. I've never even sai d I liked Chomsky, but you are still unable to tell the difference between my pointing out when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, and thinking this has something to do with whether or not I like it. THIS is another of the MANY signs of totalitarianism which you display. Here, I'll give you yet another analogy which any 4 year old could understand: Chomsky: I think a,b,c. Andrew: Chomsky thinks d,e,f. KB: No, Andrew, Chomsky thinks a,b,c. Andrew: Chomsky lover! Chomsky lover! You worship him! He's your idol! He never does anything wrong according to you! Aren't people allowed to criticize your master? KB: First of all, your assertion that he's my master simply because I pointed out that he doesn't believe d.,e,f is just plain, factually, wrong. Secondly, you can challenge his all you want, in fact, I encourage it. But you have to know what his ideas are FIRST. So, if you say that Chomsky thinks d,e,f you simply haven't even taken the first step to be able to make a criticism. That's all. It's really not that difficult, Andrew. Andrew: See? There you go, saying that he can do no wrong! You love him! He's your master! And then the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum. The same goes with Andrews inability to distinguish between criticism of his own country's crimes and thinking that the critic "hates America" or is "anti-American", also signs of indoctrinated totalitarians. You're funny, Andrew. Why don't you go to a knitting blog where the little old ladies can slap you around for a little while.KB

26 I'll take the high road here and use a favorite Chomskyite tactic. "Nothing worth commenting on."

27 Andrew said while running for cover: "I'll take the high road here and use a favorite Chomskyite tactic. "Nothing worth commenting on."" No, you see, it's just slight different when he says it and when you say it, kind of like that "America is the greatest country in the world" comparison you had made before thinking your ideas were the same when they weren't. When he says it it's because it really is not worth commenting on, say, for instance, someone says that he's a Holocaust denier. THIS kind of ignorance really shouldn't be commented on as it's not worthy. I mean, if you called me Santa Claus I doubt I'd spend a lot of time on it either. On the other hand, when YOU use the "nothing worth commenting on" it's the exact opposite. There is MUCH you 'could' comment on were you able. Bottom line, your not. You can't even make a scratch. All you're good at is throwing a little mud-of-ignorance onto the monitor and then running. Nothing more. Nada. ZERO. Zilch. Anyway, I find most things you say worth commenting on because they're so revealing about the depraved logic and irrationality of the indoctrinated rightwing pseudo-patriots. I mean, you really don't offer anything, but it's fun to watch you spin your wheels in such predictable fashion. Here's a present for you, Andrew. ***Note to reader. The name J or Ben can be replaced with Andrew or Aaron in any of my dialogues.*** J and Ben the anti-Chomskyites on Research and Scholarship: Dismantling the Works of Noam Chomsky: An Existential Crisis and Going to Hell J: Ben! Ben! Did you hear the news! Ben: No, what is it? J: I did a critical analysis of one of Chomsky’s books and I found hundreds and hundreds of errors. Ben: Oh my God! What kind of errors? J: You name it! It was poorly written. Most all of the information was completely inaccurate. The writing style sucked. The research was horrible. Basically, it was one of the worst books I’ve ever read. Ben: Great! I told you that his scholarship sucked. J: I’ve known this for a long time, but hadn’t actually read anything by him until now. Ben: We’ve got to get this information to Horowitz. He’ll be so pleased that we’ve helped him with his ambitions of dismantling Chomsky’s work. J and Ben cut and paste all of the errors found in the Chomsky book, including page numbers, references, footnotes, name-calling, etc… There were literally hundreds of pages of errors in the book. They sent all of their newly found information to Horowitz himself. A few days later they received a long email back from Horowitz thanking them for all of their hard work. He informed them that the information they had provided was “definitely going to be used” in his upcoming book, ‘The Shoddy Scholarship of Noam Chomsky: A Detailed Analysis’, and that J and Ben would get a special mention as contributors. Horowitz even asked J and Ben to send their photos as he wanted to use them on the front page of his updated ‘FrontPageMagazine’ website. J and Ben were ecstatic. They were going to be famous in the anti-Chomsky world. They’d probably even be asked to be on many political talk shows because of the brilliance of their scholarship and insight. J was already having an ‘I Used Kissinger’s Speed Stick in the Green Room’ T-shirt made just in case he was invited to be on TV. They had big plans. Their future looked bright. But the first thing they wanted to do was to go tell B about their soon-to-be-acquired fame. They could hardly wait. They knew that this was really going to piss him off. That they had so thoroughly dissected one of Chomsky’s books, and were going to soon be famous, would surely irk B as they believed him to be a big Chomskyite. First, they went to the library to look for B assuming that given his appreciation of Chomsky he’d probably go someplace stupid that had a lot of books. They were right. They found B at a big table in the back of the library with several hundred books stacked on the table. Of course there were about 40 Chomsky books in one stack, but there were also books by many historians, both conservative and radical. There were dozens of books containing government documents. There were all the great economists, political theorists, and all the classic philosophers. There were books on all of the U.S. Presidents. There were many business journals and magazines. For J and Ben to see a person surrounded by so many books was a surreal experience. Actually, they both felt a little light-headed and nauseous being near so many books, but the excitement and anticipation of telling B about their soon to be realized success was enough to keep them from getting sick. The story continues: J: Hey B! What are you doing? B: Not much. I’m just catching up on a little reading and research. Ben: What are you researching? B: I doubt you’d be interested. J: What is it? B: I’m doing research regarding the works of Noam Chomsky. Ben: (Looking and J and winking) Really? How interesting. J and I have been, too. B: Oh, really? That’s interesting. J: But we’ve never used this many books to do our research, especially the Chomsky ones. Ben: Yeah. We’ve read a couple of those conservative historians you have there, and we went through the personals in the back of that ‘Business Week’ there, but that’s about it. B: But you said you were doing research on Chomsky. J: Yeah, well, we are. (J winking back a Ben) B: You don’t think it’s necessary to read a little more of his work when doing your research? J: Not now. I mean, we didn’t really find it necessary to read him before, but now there’s even less reason. B: Why’s that. Ben: (J giving Ben the nod to go ahead and let B have it) Because J and I went through one of his books page by page and found hundreds of mistakes. His book sucked! J: Yeah! Yeah! Almost every assertion made in the book was wrong. All the ideas were stupid. And the scholarship was horrible! He must be one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever read. Only a complete idiot could believe anything said in that book. Ben: Yeah! Yeah! And we sent our findings to Horowitz and he thought our research was great! J: Yeah! And he said we were going to be on ‘FrontPageMagazine’ and that this type of scholarship was greatly appreciated by those at the ‘magazine’, and that the information was just the kind of break his webpage had been waiting for. Ben: Yeah! He said that our analysis of Chomsky was definitely ‘FrontPageMagazine’ material. He said that our comprehensive documentation would be quite useful, though not necessary, as accuracy and documentation were hardly high priorities regarding the acceptance of submissions worthy of publication at ‘FrontPage’. J: Yeah! But we supplied him with all the documentation one could have hoped for. B: That’s interesting. Congratulations! If you don’t mind my asking, in what book of Chomsky’s were all of these mistakes? J: (Looking through his bag) It was that book that your friend P recommended. He said that if we really went through this book carefully that we’d find all sorts of mistakes. Ben: And he was right! J: (Pulling the book out of his bag and holding in front of B’s face) Here it is! Here it is! This one! This is the book we’ve shredded! It’s garbage! It’s a piece of crap! It sucks! Ben: Yeah! Chomsky’s going down! Chomsky’s going down! B: Uhhhhh But that book isn’t by Chomsky. J & Ben: Huh? B: That book was written by Horowitz and Collier. That’s the ‘Anti-Chomsky Reader’. It was written by your heroes. J & Ben: WAS NOT!!! B: Sure it was. Look at the cover. Ben: (Turning to J) You dumbass! You said it was Chomsky’s book! J: (Looking bewildered and perplexed) I wondered why the book was so easy to understand. J and Ben begin screaming, crying, and fighting. Seeing that J and Ben’s hopes for anti-Chomskyan fame were being dashed he decided to offer a little solace. He told them that it probably wouldn’t really matter that the book they had shredded had been Horowitz’s own book as Horowitz was too ignorant to even recognize it as such. B told them that it was still very likely that their work would be used by ‘FrontPageMagazine’ and that they may, indeed, still become the new darlings of the anti-Chomskyites. Then B offered to lend J and Ben another book which he thought may make them feel better. He told them that a new Horowitz book had just come out, and that even B himself thought it pretty good for an anti-Chomskyite book. So, B took a copy of ‘Necessary Illusions’ out of his stack and gave it to J and Ben. He told them that this Horowitz book was much better, but that should carefully analyze it regardless. J and Ben thanked B and left the library. A few months later they returned to B in the library. B: So what did you think of that Horowitz book I lent you? Pretty good stuff, huh? J: Yeah! It was great! We didn’t find a damn mistake! It was pretty difficult though. Ben: Yeah! His sentence structure, style, and research were impeccable. And the scholarship was something I’ve never witnessed before. We had to read each sentence about 10 times before we could understand what they meant. J: Yeah! This book was much better thought out than Horowitz’s other books, by orders of magnitude I should say. Ben: Yeah, B. Thanks a lot! You’re much cooler than J and I thought. We didn’t know that you could appreciate the work of the anti-Chomskyites. B: Oh, really? Yes, I’m quite familiar with both. I’m really glad that you took the time to go through the book I lent you. Just then P approached the table where J, Ben, and B were sitting. J’s first response was to punch out P, but Ben held him back as a courtesy to B for lending them Horowitz’s ‘Necessary Illusions’. P: Hey guys! What’s up! (Looks at B and receives the green light wink) B do you still have my Chomsky book? B: (Taking the book from J’s hands) You mean this one? P: Yeah, that’s it. ‘Necessary Illusions’. J and Ben: (Screaming at the top of their lungs) “NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!” Then they both passed out. About twenty minutes later, as B and P were helping the paramedics push the gurneys to the ambulance, J and Ben slightly regained consciousness. J then looked up at B. J: (Barely able to speak) Did we really read a Chomsky book and think it was great? B: I’m afraid so. J: Oh, God! (J slips into a coma) Ben: P, please don’t tell anyone. Okay? P: Too late. It will be on the BBC in 20 minutes. (Ben slips into a coma) However, being the good and honorable humanitarians they are, B and P managed to find J and Ben the perfect place for them to begin their occupational therapy. They were going to be cleaning the toilets for some professor at M.I.T. Two days later they went to meet the professor. As they walked into the front office they passed dozens of file cabinets. They turned into a short hallway and to their horror they saw a big poster of Bertrand Russell on the wall. The door to the left of the poster was open and as they walked through the door a man wearing glasses stood. And with a toilet brush in each hand, he outstretched his arms and said: Chomsky: Hello! I’m Noam Chomsky. Get to work!

28 "I'll take the high road here and use a favorite Chomskyite tactic. "Nothing worth commenting on."" No, you see, it's just slight different when he says it and when you say it, kind of like that "America is the greatest country in the world" comparison you had made before thinking your ideas were the same when they weren't. When he says it it's because it really is not worth commenting on, say, for instance, someone says that he's a Holocaust denier." Actually I was quoting you about halfway through this comment section. You were typically evading what someone else was saying.

29 Andrew has tried to weasel out by saying: "I'll take the high road here and use a favorite Chomskyite tactic. "Nothing worth commenting on."" "No, you see, it's just slight different when he says it and when you say it, kind of like that "America is the greatest country in the world" comparison you had made before thinking your ideas were the same when they weren't. When he says it it's because it really is not worth commenting on, say, for instance, someone says that he's a Holocaust denier." "Actually I was quoting you about halfway through this comment section. You were typically evading what someone else was saying." You said you were using Chomsky's tactic. You didn't mention mine. And you didn't say where I said it. But if I did, it wasn't worth commenting on. If you said Chomsky's a black Catholic woman who's a pro wrestler, I really don't see any reason to comment on it. It's not worthy of my time. It shouldn't be worthy of your time either. That it is should be a concern for you. Basically, about 85%+ of what you say falls into this category. The other 15% almost resemble having something to do with issues, but you're just wrong about 98% of the time then. I gave you 2% for a marging of error, or in your case, a margin of correctness. Actually, I haven't really seen ANY correct statements, but I'll give you the bebfit of the doubt and just assume that I missed them because I wasn't looking at the computer that day. So, were yo going to respond to anything on here of any substance? How did you like the last dialogue? Can you explain it to me? Thanks!KB

30 "You said you were using Chomsky's tactic. You didn't mention mine." Well think for yourself instead of copying someone else. I used your words and you just assumed it was the words of Chomsky.

31 Andrew said: "Well think for yourself instead of copying someone else." Prove that I haven't thought for myself. And this is more or less inrrelevant anyway. If Chomsky says the world is round, or I say the world is round, it doesn't really matter too much who's idea it is. They're both correct.KB "I used your words and you just assumed it was the words of Chomsky." Not at all. You SAID that it was Chomsky's tactic. I don't need to assume anything. There's nothing to assume. Perhaps you should look back on this fine and important issue which you're trying to use as a method of escaping all the more important issues and see what you yourself said. It's really bad when I have to explain to you what you yourself said.KB Andrew: John is tall. KB: You said "John is tall". Andrew: No, I didn't. That's just your interpretation. You just assumed that I was talking about John.(Begins to shrivel) KB: You said "John is tall". Andrew: You're trying to change the subject. KB: You said "John is tall". Andrew: Uhhhh....uhhh....(Puts on his running shoes and heads for the hills) This is what about 90% of our conversations look like, Andrew. You know it. I know it. And any literate person reading this knows it. You are a never ending source for my satires though. Oh, by the way, that's 1-#7, 2,3-#6, and 4-#5.KB

32 Why should I read Chomsky for myself? Frankly, I've read all I can take from that turgid liar and his academic cronies! If Chomsky tells a lie, would Chomsky then tell me so himself? If Chomsky lies, how will that be known? Answer, by analysis, investigation and even scholarship, then to be freely disseminate to all seekers of truth. Now, if another points out Chomsky's lies, then why is that automatically invalid, in and of itself? You have before you a plethora of citations of lies by Chomsky, both text and hyperlinks, but all you do is to deny what appear right here before you on screen. You claim that there is no citation of lies by Chomsky. Who are you kidding? This very page has filled up with scholarly citations, examples of lies by Chomsky! However, you have not rebutted a single claim, whatsoever, of a lie by Chomsky. Come on, KB, I dare you!