Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky
FrontPage Magazine ^ | David Horowitz

Posted on 09/25/2001 10:09:39 PM PDT by VinnyTex

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky

Salon.com | September 26, 2001

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of his nation’s grave crisis – the most treacherous intellect in America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses that have mounted "teach-ins" and rallies against America’s right to defend herself; on the streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have attacked the symbols of markets and world trade; among the demonstrators at Vieques who wish to deny our military its training grounds; and wherever young people manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.

Make Comments
View Comments
Printable Article
Email Article

There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and educated youth should come to despise their own nation – a free, open, democratic society – and to do so with such ferocious passion. They ask how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them). A full answer would involve a search of the deep structures of the human psyche, and its irrepressible longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer is to be found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his intellectual supporters.

For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky’s demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them.

One little pamphlet of Chomsky’s – What Uncle Sam Really Wants – has already sold 160,000 copies (1), but this represents only the tip of the Chomsky iceberg. His venomous message is spread on tapes and CDs, and the campus lecture circuit; he is promoted at rock concerts by superstar bands such as Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine, and U-2 (whose lead singer Bono called Chomsky a "rebel without a pause"). He is the icon of Hollywood stars like Matt Damon whose genius character in the Academy Award-winning film Good Will Hunting is made to invoke Chomsky as the go-to authority for political insight.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Noam Chomsky is "the most often cited living author. Among intellectual luminaries of all eras, Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud." On the Web, there are more chat room references to Noam Chomsky than to Vice President Dick Cheney and 10 times as many as there are to Democratic congressional leaders Richard Gephardt and Tom Daschle. This is because Chomsky is also the political mentor of the academic left, the legions of Sixties radicals who have entrenched themselves in American universities to indoctrinate students in their anti-American creeds. The New York Times calls Chomsky "arguably the most important intellectual alive," and Rolling Stone – which otherwise does not even acknowledge the realm of the mind – "one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world."(2)

In fact, Chomsky’s influence is best understood not as that of an intellectual figure, but as the leader of a secular religious cult – as the ayatollah of anti-American hate. This cultic resonance is recognized by his followers. His most important devotee, David Barsamian, is an obscure public radio producer on KGNU in Boulder Colorado, who has created a library of Chomsky screeds on tape from interviews he conducted with the master, and has converted them into pamphlets and books as well. In the introduction to one such offering, Barsamian describes Chomsky’s power over his disciples: "Although decidedly secular, he is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our pundit, our imam, our sensei."(3)

The theology that Chomsky preaches is Manichean, with America as its evil principle. For Chomsky no evil however great can exceed that of America, and America is also the cause of evil in others. This is the key to the mystery of September 11: The devil made them do it. In every one of the 150 shameful demonstrations that took place on America’s campuses on September 20, these were the twin themes of those who agitated to prevent America from taking up arms in her self-defense: America is responsible for the "root causes" of this criminal attack; America has done worse to others.

In his first statement on the terrorist attack, Chomsky’s response to Osama bin Laden’s calculated strike on a building containing 50,000 innocent human beings was to eclipse it with an even greater atrocity he was confident he could attribute to former president Bill Clinton. Chomsky’s infamous September 12 statement "On the Bombings" began:

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).(4)

Observe the syntax. The opening reference to the actual attacks is clipped and bloodless, a kind of rhetorical throat clearing for Chomsky to get out of the way, so that he can announce the real subject of his concern – America’s crimes. The accusation against Clinton is even slipped into the text, weasel fashion, as though it were a modifier, when it is actually the substantive message itself. It is a message that says: Look away, America, from the injury that has been done to you, and contemplate the injuries you have done to them. It is in this sleight of hand that Chomsky reveals his true gift, which is to make the victim, America, appear as an even more heinous perpetrator than the criminal himself. However bad this may seem, you have done worse.

In point of fact – and just for the record – however ill-conceived Bill Clinton’s decision to launch a missile into the Sudan, it was not remotely comparable to the World Trade Center massacre. It was, in its very design, precisely the opposite – a defensive response that attempted to minimize casualties. Clinton’s missile was launched in reaction to the blowing up of two of our African embassies, the murder of hundreds of innocent people and the injury to thousands, mostly African civilians. It was designed with every precaution possible to prevent the loss of innocent life. The missile was fired at night, so that no one would be in the building when it was hit. The target was selected because the best information available indicated it was not a pharmaceutical factory, but a factory producing biological weapons. Chomsky’s use of this incident to diminish the monstrosity of the terrorist attack is a typical Chomsky maneuver, an accurate measure of his instinctive mendacity, and an index of the anti-American dementia, which infuses everything he writes and says.

This same psychotic hatred shapes the "historical" perspective he offered to his disciples in an interview conducted a few days after the World Trade Center bombing. It was intended to present America as the devil incarnate – and therefore a worthy target of attack for the guerilla forces of "social justice" all over the world. This was the first time America itself – or as Chomsky put it the "national territory" – had been attacked since the War of 1812. Pearl Harbor doesn’t count in Chomsky’s calculus because Hawaii was a "colony" at the time. The fact that it was a benignly run colony and that it is now a proud state of the Union counts for nothing, of course, in Chomsky’s eyes.

During these years [i.e., between 1812 and 1941], the US annihilated the indigenous population (millions of people), conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. That is a dramatic change.(5)

Listening to Chomsky, you can almost feel the justice of Osama bin Laden’s strike on the World Trade Center.

If you were one of the hundreds of thousands of young people who had been exposed to his propaganda – and the equally vile teachings of his academic disciples – you too would be able to extend your outrage against America into the present.

    • According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off."

    • According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind the Iron Curtain included "a ‘secret army’ under US-Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s."

    • According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S. support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads."

    • According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between torture and U.S. aid."

    • According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)

    • According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington’s terrorist wars [i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any monstrous act, even the Nazi Holocaust." (7)

    • In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes."(8)

What decent, caring human being would not want to see America and its war criminals brought to justice?

According to Chomsky, what America really wants is to steal from the poor and give to the rich. America’s crusade against Communism was actually a crusade "to protect our doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor."(9) That is why we busied ourselves in launching a new crusade against terrorism after the end of the Cold War:

Of course, the end of the Cold War brings its problems too. Notably, the technique for controlling the domestic population has had to shift… New enemies have to be invented. It becomes hard to disguise the fact that the real enemy has always been ‘the poor who seek to plunder the rich’ – in particular, Third World miscreants who seek to break out of the service role.(10)

According to Chomsky, America is afraid of the success of Third World countries and does not want them to succeed on their own. Those who threaten to succeed like the Marxist governments of North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Grenada America regards as viruses. According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, "except for a few madmen and nitwits, none feared [Communist] conquest – they were afraid of a positive example of successful development. "What do you do when you have a virus? First you destroy it, then you inoculate potential victims, so that the disease does not spread. That’s basically the US strategy in the Third World.".(11)

No wonder they want to bomb us.

Schooled in these big lies, taught to see America as Greed Incarnate and a political twin of the Third Reich, why wouldn’t young people – with no historical memory – come to believe that the danger ahead lies in Washington rather than Baghdad or Kabul?

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky’s lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe – his pathological hatred of his own country.

It would take volumes, however, to do this and there really is no need. Because every Chomsky argument exists to serve this end, a fact transparent in each offensive and preposterous claim he makes. Hence, the invidious comparison of Clinton’s misguided missile and the monstrous World Trade Center attack.

In fact the Trade Center and the Pentagon targets of the terrorists present a real political problem for American leftists, like Chomsky, who know better than to celebrate an event that is the almost predictable realization of their agitations and their dreams. The destroyed buildings are the very symbols of the American empire with which they have been at war for fifty years. In a memoir published on the eve of the attack, the 60s American terrorist Bill Ayers recorded his joy at striking one of these very targets: "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."(12) In the wake of September 11, Ayers – a "Distinguished Professor of Education[!] at the University of Chicago – had to feverishly backtrack and explain that these revealing sentiments of an "anti-war" leftist do not mean what they obviously do. Claiming to be "filled with horror and grief," Ayers attempted to reinterpret his terrorist years as an effort to explore his own struggle with "the intricate relationships between social justice, commitment and resistance."(13)

Chomsky is so much Ayers’ superior at the lie direct that he works the same denial into his account of the World Trade Center bombing itself. Consider first the fact that the Trade Center is the very symbol of American capitalism and "globalization" that Chomsky and his radical comrades despise. It is Wall Street, its twin towers filled on that fateful day with bankers, brokers, international traders, and corporate lawyers – the hated men and women of the "ruling class," who – according to Chomsky – run the global order. The twin towers are the palace of the Great Satan himself. They are the belly of the beast, the object of Chomsky’s lifelong righteous wrath. But he is too clever and too cowardly to admit it. He knows that, in the hour of the nation’s grief, the fact itself is a third rail he must avoid. And so he dismisses the very meaning of the terrorists’ target in these words:

The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people.

Chomsky’s deception which attempts to erase the victims who were not merely "janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc.," tells us more than we might care to know about his own standard of human concern.

That concern is exclusively reserved for the revolutionary forces of his Manichean vision, the Third World oppressed by American evil. Chomsky’s message to his disciples in this country, the young on our college campuses, the radicals in our streets, the moles in our government offices, is a message of action and therefore needs to be attended to, even by those who will never read his rancid works. To those who believe his words of hate, Chomsky has this instruction:

The people of the Third World need our sympathetic understanding and, much more than that, they need our help. We can provide them with a margin of survival by internal disruption in the United States. Whether they can succeed against the kind of brutality we impose on them depends in large part on what happens here.(14)

This is the voice of the Fifth Column left. Disruption in this country is what the terrorists want, and what the terrorists need, and what the followers of Noam Chomsky intend to give them.

In his address before Congress on September 19, President Bush reminded us: "We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follw in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies."

President Bush was talking about the terrorists and their sponsors abroad. But he might just as well have been talking about their fifth column allies at home.

It’s time for Americans who love their country to stand up, and defend it.

 

(1)Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Tucson, 1986 (interviews with David Barsamian)

(2)Ibid.

(3)Noam Chomsky, Propaganda and the Public Mind, Interviews by David Barsamian, Cambridge, 2001 p. x. In the endpapers of this volume the NY Times is quoted praising Chomsky as "an exploder of received truths." The Guardian (London): "One of the radical heroes of our age…A towering intellect…" The Times Literary Supplement: "Chomsky’s work … has some of the qualities of Revelations, the Old Testament prophets and Blake."

(4)Available at www.znet.org

(5)Interview, September 19, 2001. www.znet.org

(6)What Uncle Sam Really Wants, pp. 8, 18, 29, 31, 32, 56-58

(7)Chomsky, Profit Over People, NY 1999, p. 102

(8)What Uncle Sam Really Wants, p. 32

(9)Ibid. p. 79

(10)Ibid. pp. 82

(11)Ibid. pp. 56-7

(12)Bill Ayers, Fugitive Days, NY 2001, p. 256

(13)Statement on the publisher’s website, www.beacon.org

(14)What Uncle Sam Really Wants, p. 100

 

David Horowitz is editor-in-chief of FrontPageMagazine.com and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: Egregious Philbin
Isn't America strong enough to live with its dissenters?

In no sense are we refusing to "live with" them, as Prof. Chomsky's views are getting more attention than ever. He is simply being harshly criticized, which is to be expected when one strides so ostentatiously in the arena of ideas.

What Mr. Horowitz has presented is useful information about Noam Chomsky. It is not decisive, just as Prof. Chomsky's claims about America are not, but it is useful. Whether Prof. Chomsky is "the Ayatollah of anti-American hate" is a debatable question, but Mr. Horowitz has done us a service by raising it.

IMHO, what Mr. Horowitz says about him is considerably less irrational or objectionable than what he says about America and its role in the world.

21 posted on 09/26/2001 8:21:31 AM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Bump the public horsewhipping of Noam Chomsky, pathological liar.

Well said. Anyone know if Noam's pathological narcissist buddy Norman Mailer has sounded off on this stuff yet?

22 posted on 09/26/2001 8:29:25 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Horowitz's message board regarding "Norm Commsky"...
23 posted on 09/26/2001 8:30:01 AM PDT by Benrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sargon
He could be a great mind if he wasn't such a rabid Marxist.

And pig droppings wouldn't stink if they were made of flowers.

High IQ and verbal fluency do not make one smart. Chomsky, in both his scientific and political writings, has dug deep, but he has dug dry holes. He has ruined the careers of other linguists while producing nothing worthwhile himself. He has caused researchers in AI to waste their entire lifetimes in the hopeless pursuit of a purely rational intelligent system.

His science and his politics are of one piece. He is tempermentally an autistic savant -- completely blind to the emotional component of our existence, the nuances of verbal connotation, and hidden meaning.

It is no surprise that he favors a government that reasons out perfect solutions and imposes them from the top.

24 posted on 09/26/2001 8:31:48 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
Horowitz's message board regarding "Norm Commsky"...
25 posted on 09/26/2001 8:41:54 AM PDT by Benrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"He is tempermentally an autistic savant..."

Or possibly a sociopath..."Noam...meet Hannibal...no, not the elephant guy, the lamb guy...

26 posted on 09/26/2001 9:06:04 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
Isn't America strong enough to live with its dissenters?

Chomsky is not merely a dissenter. He has already issued veiled calls for Fifth-Column activity and domestic sabotage.

Shouldn't we try to learn from the critic of our policies as well as the supporter?

Horowitz does not blindly embrace all the policies of the US government - he often criticizes various foreign policy initiatives. But Chomsky blindly opposes all American foreign and domestic policy. He is not offering "constructive criticism" - he is calling for the destruction of the US.

As for the factory-bombing in the Sudan - it may have been unintelligent, but there was no reason to suppose that it was malicious. US aid programs support the Sudanese and even import free pharmaceuticals to them - blowing up a pharmaceuticals factory was a horrible PR move which accomplished nothing of military value. Thankfully only one or two persons were killed as a result.

But comparing this stupidly botched attack with the deliberate, premeditated and intentional murder of approximately 7,000 human beings is either idiocy or malice.

27 posted on 09/26/2001 9:08:13 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced...

Then, Mr. H., why don't you do it? You repeatedly call Chomsky a liar, but I see nothing here to back up that claim, other than the fact that you don't like the position he takes.

It would take volumes, however, to do this and there really is no need.

Oh, well, that's a pretty convenient "out", then, isn't it?

It's one thing to express outrage at how Chomsky downplays the WTC bombings in comparison with military actions taken by the U.S. in recent history, but it's another thing to pretend that the hands of the U.S. are completely clean, as well, which they aren't.

Somehow, I never would have expected to see Horowitz justify Clinton's bombing of the aspirin factory as being anything but an attempt to distract from Monica's date with the Grand Jury.

28 posted on 09/26/2001 9:12:16 AM PDT by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
We can assume that the intent was to murder way more that 7,000 civilians, too. Maybe 40,000 in the two towers, and if they could be toppled, 40,000 more. Plus, it looks as though other planes were on the verge of being hijacked. Al Quaeda would have been overjoyed with 200,000 casualties for a day's work.
29 posted on 09/26/2001 9:15:27 AM PDT by caspera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers is on the faculty at the University of Illinois at Chicago, not the University of Chicago.

And Ayers is married to another radical, Bernadine Dohrn, who is on the law faculty at Northwestern. (Guess I shouldn't be surprised.)

30 posted on 09/26/2001 9:38:21 AM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
"...but you[sic] they are not outright lies."

Ahhh... Egregious, so we meet again!

As I've said before, Horowitz's writings leave something to be desired, but we have opposite reasons for this one common view between us... I simply don't trust Horowitz because he was a communist. As experience shows and even as Horowitz tells us, communism lives by the lie. Half truths, lies of omission, and outright falsehoods are the essense of the Marxist dialectic, but also an instinctive part of common socialism, which relies on things like the labor theory of value and class warfare, both frought with the portrayal of wealth producers as leeches on society's skin.

Yes, I've read Chomsky. Yes, he's brilliant. And yes, he lies like a cheap rug.

31 posted on 09/26/2001 9:40:45 AM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Chomsky most likely advocates a liberal, feel good old-fashioned nonviolent sit in. Not quite sabotage, more like patting oneself on the back.

I agree that Chomsky's linking of the two events was cheap, and not really a fair parallel. Like most pundits, left or right, he couldn't seem to resist trying to link the WTC attack to his agenda, while treading over its victims and their loved ones.

Chomsky's criticisms of the US are valuable, as a way of examining our history and our many instances of botched foreign policy, a foreign policy which we do seem to be amending. No longer can we support tyrants like Hussein until they go too far, no longer can we throw $$ at dictatorships when we should be funding their opposition...

32 posted on 09/26/2001 9:41:04 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
"I also cannot believe that Horowitz would be so two-faced as to use the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan against Chomsky! In any other instance he would use it to blast Clinton!"

I think you miss the point. Horowitz is showing the near psychotic break with reality one must have in order to equate the two events. In no way was Horowitz defending the bombing. He was merely showing that any great loss of life was unintended. I despise Clinton, and yet I can believe that.

Attatching projected numbers of "resultant" dead to the pharmaceutical plant bombing is a pretty disengenuous and convenient device to try to amplify the "war crime" vibe.

The WTC attack was intended to produce as much indiscriminate slaughter of innocents as possible. To compare the two as morally equivalent is obscene.

33 posted on 09/26/2001 9:47:49 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
"Chomsky most likely advocates a liberal, feel good old-fashioned nonviolent sit in."

As a child of the 60's, I had to watch way too much of the college pukes taking over the campuses on television. Even then, I was smart enough to understand that the comandeering and subsequent trashing of public and private property by gangs of unkempt thugs was anything but non-violent.

34 posted on 09/26/2001 9:49:59 AM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
I was waiting for you HB! David Horowitz - bringing people together, one at a time! Thanks alot for quoting my typo, BTW. ;-)

So Horowitz will never live down his past? Once a Commie, always a Commie? He seems to be working extra hard at dismissing that claim. He also seems to have a weird revenge thing going on. Is it - thou doth protest too much?

That Chomsky works from the little details up puts him well ahead of Horowitz in my book, whether or not you agree with his eventual use of his research to espouse extreme left views.

35 posted on 09/26/2001 9:56:27 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
Nahh. Horowitz may just redeem himself in my eyes one day soon. It was just a personal opinion of mine that some of his anti-communist writings came off vaguely as leftist agitprop during the Clinton era.

But he's as solid as Thomas Sowell on this point: "Communism lives by the lie."

Have you read Sowell? He's required reading for FReepers. This is, after all, a conservative discussion website. Apologists for leftists aren't generally tolerated and don't usually last too long. But we enjoy the hell out of debating those who take the time to understand us.

36 posted on 09/26/2001 10:09:53 AM PDT by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Egregious Philbin
Interesting that a linguistics professor is the self-styled expert on politics and public policy. Since his Ph.D. is not in political science, his rantings on politics should be taken no more seriously than his opinions of particle physics.

(It should be noted that Chomsky's scholarship in linguistics will outlast his political writing - indeed, he is one of the most important figures in the field.)

Come on, what kind of competition does he have? I mean, really, please give me some reason to disabuse myself of the notion that these are people that "ooh" and "aah" at Venn diagrams.

38 posted on 09/26/2001 10:49:13 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

bttt
39 posted on 09/26/2001 10:52:06 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
So what about it FR's Chomsky-lovers?

(If you don't think we have them you haven't been paying attention.)

40 posted on 09/26/2001 10:58:37 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson