Isnt that the main point? So at most what you are saying is that he should have counted on being taken for meaning something other than what he meant. Or he should have cared enough about it to make some of his views perfectly clear to anyone and everyone else.
> But, Noam is either disingenuous or naive
Or how about it isnt possible to satisfy everyone all the time? How much do I have to denounce the holder of a view when all I want to do is point out his right to speak? Why is this not an issue in all free speech claims (in Cuba, Poland etc)? As a matter of logical consistancy, there is nothing wrong with Chomsky's claims. You and others may feel he should take the stand every time to say "now this guy is x and y" first but that's hardly a principled objection; it's a subjective view of the importance of so doing unrelated to internal logical consistancy and based on political circumstance which may be read very differently. So he reads or read it differently. Big deal. Let's apply a similar standard to all and see who's left standing...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com