Thus far Bill Lear has chosen name-calling, lawyerly evasions, and theological hairsplitting in preference to discussion of political issues that he snatched out of context from my private off-line correspondence and subsequent additions. Inquiring minds ask whether he will be as quick to question Saint Noam's veracity in light of these contradictory statements or, as I predict, he will instead continue to heap insults on Chomsky's critics while dodging direct challenges to his own hypocritical rants.
Chomsky to The Nation [thanks to LP for posting]:
"In this statement, I made it explicit that would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it)."
Robert Faurisson on Chomsky's statement to him:
"Noam Chomsky, the famous professor (of Jewish origin) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is aware of the research work I do on what Revisionist Historians term 'the gas chamber and genocide hoax.' He informed me that Gitta Sereny had mentioned my name in the above article, and stated that I had been referred to 'in an extraordinarily unfair way.' "
Which was it? Limited familiarity and lack of interest, or sufficient familiarity with his Holocaust-denying colleague to brand one scholarly anti- Nazi critic's evaluation "unfair"?
Ken Lawrence