Dennis, Anybody who would talk in these terms about any serious scientific theory isn't worth talking with himself. Chomsky is one the great linguistics scholars of all time; his theories many be wrong in whole or part, but they are not the starting point for everyone else because he's a fool. Any anyone who doesn't reaklize that scholarship is the entirely proper domain of elitism doesn't know beans about what scholars do or how they do it. --jks
>
>m malak wrote:
>
>for chomsky to refer to berwick is like the Pope referring to some bishop's
>review of 'islam' or 'atheism' to say this proves its [sic] bs. or stalin
>asking one of his crew to criticize a bertrand russel [sic] type. despite
>the fact that Chomsky has read Bakunin (a prominent liberal anti-elitist)
>he
>still uses the fact that someone is 'prominent' and teaches at 'MIT' as a
>propogandisitic [sic] tool for criticizing others' arguments---i seriously
>dought [sic] chomsky has read any [any what?] in the past 10 years of
>people
>who work in different schools---he doesn't have to.
>. . . .
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com