Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

**Accidental Ajarn** · 26-07-2008, 08:17 PM

^

Wow, quite the articulate response. (But you didn’t answer the question).

**ItsRobsLife** · 27-07-2008, 12:06 AM

I'll have to spread some about before I red you, but it's on the list for such an unintelligent post in the first place #224

**Accidental Ajarn** · 27-07-2008, 07:48 PM

^

Again, nothing but personal insults and attacks, none of you true believers can provide any evidence that Chomsky uses any acceptable academic methodology to reach his conclusions.

Yes, you and Chomsky's other supporters on this forum have shown they can attempt to make the debate personal, but none of you have shown you have any understanding of what is considered reliable or valid research.

Red away, let the childish insults fly, buy neither will advance you position. Of course, obviously it is the only recourse you have, as you have no evidence to support your positions.

**ItsRobsLife** · 27-07-2008, 09:40 PM

I haven't used any personal insults and my and the majority of other posters point of view is more dynamic than you care to make out.

Read your post #224. it's insuling and immature and adds nothing to the discussion in this thread. And you want us to take you seriously? Your resort to sarcasm when a valid point has been made is also rather insulting.

You keep coming back to the same point that we have to prove that Chomsky uses academic methodology to reach his conclusions when clearly by the very nature of his work he has used an applied methodology that goes beyond pure academia.

You talk about academic methodology as if it is some kind of higher knowledge known only to the few.
Clearly by definition 'academic' is not the definitive measure of Chomsky's work as you claim.

ac·a·dem·ic Audio Help/ˌækəˈdɛmɪk/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-uh-dem-ik]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, esp. one for higher education: academic requirements.

2.pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.

3.theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.

4.learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.

5.conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional: academic painting.

6.acquired by formal education, esp. at a college or university: academic preparation for the ministry.

7.(initial capital letter) of or pertaining to Academe or to the Platonic school of philosophy. –noun

8.a student or teacher at a college or university.

9.a person who is academic in background, attitudes, methods, etc.: He was by temperament an academic, concerned with books and the arts.

10.(initial capital letter) a person who supports or advocates the Platonic school of philosophy.

11.academics, the scholarly activities of a school or university, as classroom studies or research projects: more emphasis on academics and less on athletics.

meth·od·ol·o·gy Audio Help/ˌmɛθəˈdɒlədʒi/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meth-uh-dol-uh-jee]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1.a set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a given discipline, as in the arts or sciences.

2.Philosophy. a.the underlying principles and rules of organization of a philosophical system or inquiry procedure. b.the study of the principles underlying the organization of the various sciences and the conduct of scientific inquiry.

3.Education. a branch of pedagogics dealing with analysis and evaluation of subjects to be taught and of the methods of teaching them.

Hardly beyond comprehension is it?

As you claim to be an Academic I do find suggestion 4. rather fitting for you.

You are simply trolling this thread trying to drag the debate in the direction of your own illogical pursuit.
You haven't even read anything by Chomsky.

Red on it's way.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 28-07-2008, 11:15 PM

^

This has nothing to do with the topic. Obviously you have no evidence and are attempting to change the topic.

**barbaro** · 28-07-2008, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Hey, why is it the same people who believe in a US government coverup of UFOs are the same people who support Chomsky?

I don't see people "supporting" Chomsky as much as agreeing with many (but not all) of his points, like I do on certain subjects.

As for UFO beliefe and "support" of Chomsky, I think you should provide polling data and the sample size.

**ItsRobsLife** · 29-07-2008, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

^

This has nothing to do with the topic. Obviously you have no evidence and are attempting to change the topic.

**Accidental Ajarn** · 29-07-2008, 10:07 PM

“agreeing with many (but not all) of his points, like I do on certain subjects.”

Whether you like or agree with his conclusions has nothing to do with his being an academic fraud.

Just because he comes up with conclusions you like does not make his making up or distorting evidence acceptable.

You are mistaking liking the results with using acceptable methodology.

Fraud is a fraud, regardless of political orientation. Chomsky is a complete fraud and not one of his supporters here has provided a single piece of evidence or logical argument against this conclusion.

**sabang** · 30-07-2008, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Fraud is a fraud, regardless of political orientation. Chomsky is a complete fraud and not one of his supporters here has provided a single piece of evidence or logical argument against this conclusion.

No AA, you are a complete fraud. It is one thing to distort, another to lie.

You have lied now about several things including providing no supporting evidence (early in the piece I mentioned Chomsky's exposes of the US backed atrocities in Central America- later proved true). There is more

You then went on, in your Post #224 above, to allege all the people 'supporting' Chomsky (whatever you may mean by that) also believe the Roswell incident was a UFO cover up. I do not, indeed I am satisfied by the USAF explanation- as is the author of one of the early Roswell conspiracy' books, who subsequently reversed his position. You told an outright lie.

Some scholar- you think that constant repetition and innuendo score you some credibility. They don't- frankly it is utterly, mind numbingly boring. And what is worse, mendacious. You ask vague questions about 'proving' opinions or allegations of Chomsky (as you well know, epistemiologically opinions are not 'provable', but backed up by evidence and interpretation) - whilst answering no questions yourself. It is rankly evident that you have read little, if any, Chomsky.

Thus, you are a Fraud. Of course, being a Fraud yourself you then feel quite justified in calling serious academics a Fraud. Are you secretly jealous that Chomsky has achieved such prominence, when you know full well you will achieve none?

**Accidental Ajarn** · 30-07-2008, 09:14 PM

^

Yet again, nothing but silly name calling and an attempt to discredit the messenger as you have no evidence to back up your posiiton.

**sabang** · 30-07-2008, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Hey, why is it the same people who believe in a US government coverup of UFOs are the same people who support Chomsky?

Would you care to either explain or retract this statement AA?

**Accidental Ajarn** · 31-07-2008, 08:43 AM

^

Still focusing on the messenger and not the message. Is this your only support you have for your psoition?

**AntRobertson** · 31-07-2008, 09:06 AM

^He's asking you to explain or retract a statement you made, the message. Why are you unable or unwilling to do so?

**Accidental Ajarn** · 31-07-2008, 01:41 PM

^

Yet another attempt to make this thread about me in order to deflect the fact none of Chomsky's supporters here have any evidence to support their positions.

**AntRobertson** · 31-07-2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Yet another attempt to make this thread about me...

Crickey, that's quite some ego!

It's not about you, it's about you providing some basis or rationale for the claim that you've made. You're after all apparently the flag-bearer for rigourous intellectual standards and process.

So I ask you again; why are you unable or unwilling to do so?

**Accidental Ajarn** · 31-07-2008, 01:50 PM

^

Yet another attempt to make this thread about me in order to deflect the fact none of Chomsky's supporters here have any evidence to support their positions.

The Chomsky supporters here do demonstrate their passion for their prophet by attacking someone exposing him, however I haven't seen much logic displayed and no evidence that Chomsky uses acceptable data sampling and analytical techniques to come to his conclusion (singular, as it is always the same, America and everything it stands for are evil).

Anyone want to wage whether Chomsky’s supporters will respond to this post with evidence to support their positions or by another personal attack towards me?

**AntRobertson** · 31-07-2008, 01:59 PM

AA,

This is what you, amongst many other claims, stated:

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Hey, why is it the same people who believe in a US government coverup of UFOs are the same people who support Chomsky?

This was sabang's response to that:

Originally Posted by sabang

Would you care to either explain or retract this statement AA?

It's not a personal attack, it's a perfect civil and justified question. So the question remains: why are you unwilling or unable to address the issue?

**Accidental Ajarn** · 31-07-2008, 03:38 PM

^

More of the same, yet another attempt to deflect the attention away from the evidence.

**good2bhappy** · 31-07-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Yet again, nothing but insults and personal attacks and nothing of substance in which to support your position.

This seems to be a stock phrase of AA's

**Accidental Ajarn** · 31-07-2008, 04:05 PM

^

This thread is not about me, it is about Chomsky's work. However, his supporters can provide no evidence to support their claim that Chomsky's single and simple-minded conclusion to each and every problem is based on any type of acceptable research.

So, Chomsky's supporter focus on me, tearing down claims I never made. Old tactic. Have no defense, attack your opponent and make it personal.

I have no desire to defend myself from atttacks from my "opponents" on this issue on this thread.

Let us keep to the topic.

I have pointed out my opinion of Chomsky's work and the opinion of the vast majority of academia.

I do not make my living researching the work of this crackpot, however I know enough about objective research and have read enough of his work to know he is full of shit.

**good2bhappy** · 31-07-2008, 04:10 PM

^ in that case you should rest your case
ad hominem attacks are pointless as you so rightly state

**Butterfly** · 31-07-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

I have pointed out my opinion of Chomsky's work

Yes you did, only an opinion, nothing else

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

the opinion of the vast majority of academia.

No, you didn't

**Accidental Ajarn** · 31-07-2008, 10:49 PM

^

Nothing here in support of your position, just once again attempting to change the topic from Chomsky's lack of credibility to me. Sorry, I ain't taking the bait. Obviously none of you Chomsky supporters have even the slightest evidence to back up your claims.

Chomsky’s claim - Israel is bad

Reason- Israel is an ally of the USA

Chomsky’s claim - Capitalism is bad

Reason – Capitalism is associated with the USA

Chomsky’s claim - The American media is bad

Reason – It is the AMERICAN media.

Chomsky’s claim – All American foreign policy is bad

Reason- it is AMERICA’S foreign policy

Chomsky Claim - Communism and terrorism are good.

Reason - These are enemies of America.

And the gullible and uneducated eat it up without critically analyzing how he comes to his conclusions.

Chomsky claims America is bad yet has never lived anywhere else.

Chomsky claims capitalism is bad and yet gladly accepts huge payments from his disciples who pay for his books, lectures and merchandize.

And the gullible continue to give the hard earned money of their parents to this greedy “anti-capitalist.”

What a hoot

Keep believing if you want, a fool and his money are soon parted and the "Anti-capitalist” is more than willing to relieve you suckers of your unearned wealth.

Chomsky, he at least gets to laugh all the way to the bank about the stupidity of the modern left, I only get to laugh.

Yeah, I think as the population has increased, more than one sucker is born every minute. Chomsky counts on it to make his fortune.

**sabang** · 31-07-2008, 11:21 PM

^ Real mind bending academic research there AA, I'm sure Chomsky would be proud of you, and your fellow Ivy League scholars are no doubt considering nominating you for a Nobel Prize.

Meanwhile, Chomsky remains the most quoted man alive, and was voted the most important living intellectual.

He is doubtless looking over his shoulder anxiously though, as your implacable logic inexorably grinds him into the dust. If he does not yet even know of your existence, and ground breaking research, this is merely further evidence of his utter irrelevance in modern day society, and you should not hesitate to let the right wing Blogosphere know of these important revelations forthwith.

**AntRobertson** · 31-07-2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Chomsky’s claim - Israel is bad

Reason- Israel is an ally of the USA

Chomsky’s claim - Capitalism is bad

Reason – Capitalism is associated with the USA

Chomsky’s claim - The American media is bad

Reason – It is the AMERICAN media.

Chomsky’s claim – All American foreign policy is bad

Reason- it is AMERICA’S foreign policy

Chomsky Claim - Communism and terrorism are good.

Reason - These are enemies of America.

Yeah that's great. Now any chance you might actually substantiate any of these claims this time? That's substantiate, not just repeat ad nauseum.

Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions