If you don't know who Noam Chomsky is then this will give you an opportunity to get acquainted.
Exclusive: After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky

 

If you want to be acquainted with someone, especially a writer, you should read his books. At least one.

Online media is mostly full of shit, or at least falsely subversive (what I call pushing open doors ^ ^).
If one wants to learn anything, one have to do it seriously, not by just reading an article between having a beer and taking a piss...

And once you're serious about it, you know that Chomsky is a fraud.

 

I didn't mean acquainted with his works, I just meant with who he is. Most of the people here may not know or ever read his works but the point of the article is to highlight the surveillance state not to dissect the man himself.

 

I must admit I have some difficulties in endorsing such a statement concerning one of the prominent linguist of our era. *no*

 

I don't know what you're talking about... probably because I was not at the Prominent Linguist Awards ceremony.

But let's be serious, the guy is a fraud because he's lying about the zionism. He's lying because he knows what happened since the second zionist congress (eviction of Herzl, to be replaced by the russian rabbins) but still, he says otherwise. If you really want to understand (I mean if you were not here by chance dropping a message because you had nothing better to do) try Douglas Reed, Gilad Atzmon or Israël Shahak. A step above Chomsky.

Serious people are never considered prominent by the public opinion, but rather as fascists or on that specific topic, as antisemitics => which is linguistically a joke, when you talk about russian immigrants !

Understood mate.

 

You should drop by, it's always exciting to learn new things.

Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion and also to express it. I don't share your opinion on the persona of Noam Chomsky and I quoted his valuable contribution to humanae litterae. Now, for you the issue of zionism has greater significance but to me is totally insignificant. Have I been fair enough? I will pass on the list of authors to prove my point because it won't be a short one.

Since the guy you're so lovely bashing upon is a well known anarchic I suppose that your reference to fascism must be an hyperbole as it is historically wrong. I see no claque following Chomsky, but rather people that are willing to learn or hear something from one of the most prominent philosophical mind of our era. I don't blame them at all neither consider them "not serious" enough or imply that each one of them follows him acritically. See how I am more tolerant than you?

 

I've already heard everything you said in the media. That's exactly why I don't believe a word of it. Maybe you could enlighten me with his contribution ?
For me, he is to be compared to JP Sartre... and maybe you appreciate him either, but as you said everyone is entitled to his own opinion and I don't share it.
The guy is what we call in France a "smoker". An example: Voltaire is a smoker, Rousseau is serious.
Today is a world of fake and people support it by not questioning it.

I do not try to look tolerant or smart or anything, I'm just attached to the truth and being honest. Some people may think I'm rude or arrogant... You see, it's not about me trying to look cool. I'm not here to get a public, c'mon there's only the two of us in this thread ^ ^

Napoleon, who knew a thing or two about manipulation, had this brilliant quote: "The hand who give is above the hand who receive".
That's why Chomsky and so many others are a fraud (understand falsely subversive), because one doesn't bite the hand which feeds you...

 

His critique of behaviourism and structuralism, generative and transformational grammar just to name a few.

Fine. I prefer Camus however I don't understand the pindaric link between an existentialist and a modern linguist.

You do realize you're talking about one of the fathers of Enlightenment and one of the finest prolific philosophical authors of his era, don't you? After this statement I wonder about your entire education that brought you to such a conclusion (whatever "smoker" means).

I didn't know we were already inside 1984.

I believe soon there will be only one if I see another poor author behaded so easily by your "Truth and honesty". Then you're "public" will be gone.

Still don't understand. Chomsky manipulates and bites who, exactly? Any proofs?