Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Chomsky's accuracy
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 26 - 50 of 144 - Collapse all < Older  Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
NRN Consulting  
View profile
 More options 1 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: n...@enteract.com (NRN Consulting)
Date: 2000/07/01
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <OW975.1492$I76.104...@monger.newsread.com>,

John Filiss <jfil...@bestweb.net> wrote:

>No, we formed a Worker's Council and traveled around the world to work in
>different fabs so we could avoid Marxist alienation from the product of our
>labor.  Unfortunately, Moore foolishly lapsed into reactivism, and is trying
>to run an antiquated SGI MIPS, prior to SGI's betrayal to the
>counter-revolutionary IA-64 from Intel.  His weak MIPS enables only the most
>pitiful graphics work.  I went to Dresden to get a heroic new Thunderbird
>Athlon with powerful FPU for robust rendering capabilities.

>John Filiss
>The Anarchy Board
>http://pub5.ezboard.com/btheanarchyboard

You've got too much time on your hands and your board sucks.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ignatz Mouse  
View profile
 More options 1 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/01
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <slocscg5je...@corp.supernews.com>,
  Matt <matth2...@my-deja.com> wrote:

I appreciate all the info on the debates. I didn't realize that it
wasn't some sort of print debate or in an official setting. I went
through the stuff portaugust posted about Donald, Chomsky and Clore on
the topic. I'm inclined to side with Chomsky. Donald seems to be
working too hard to try to impress someone to me. I hadn't really
looked at Clore's stuff, which I guess is pretty comprehensive. I've
read alot about the issue of Cambodia concerning Chomsky's and Herman's
work in the print media and haven't seen them really lose any arguments
there about what they wrote. I'll try to take some time to go through
as much of that stuff as possible to see if there is anything new being
brought to light.
Chomsky's response was interesting. He was glib as usual, but I wonder
why he felt the need to respond to something written on the internet. I
would gather from that response, that he probably doesn't spend much
time in this newsgroup.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
John Filiss  
View profile
 More options 1 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: "John Filiss" <jfil...@bestweb.net>
Date: 2000/07/01
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

"NRN Consulting" <n...@enteract.com> wrote in message

news:8jjgha$1ogt$1@news.enteract.com...

I always appreciate constructive and intelligent criticism.

I'm glad the board doesn't appeal to you.

John Filiss
The Anarchy Board
http://pub5.ezboard.com/btheanarchyboard


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dan Clore  
View profile
 More options 2 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>
Date: 2000/07/02
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

I don't think you understand what Herman was saying there. You might
want to go back over this again, and maybe check _Manufacturing Consent_
on the subject of "flak".

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm

"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Dan Clore  
View profile
 More options 2 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>
Date: 2000/07/02
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

He doesn't spend any time on newsgroups. He does respond when this stuff
is brought to his attention at the ChomskyChat forum:
www.lbbs.org

--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore

The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm

"Tho-ag in Zhi-gyu slept seven Khorlo. Zodmanas
zhiba. All Nyug bosom. Konch-hog not; Thyan-Kam
not; Lha-Chohan not; Tenbrel Chugnyi not;
Dharmakaya ceased; Tgenchang not become; Barnang
and Ssa in Ngovonyidj; alone Tho-og Yinsin in
night of Sun-chan and Yong-grub (Parinishpanna),
&c., &c.,"
-- The Book of Dzyan.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Ignatz Mouse  
View profile
 More options 3 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/03
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <395F8EC2....@columbia-center.org>,

While I haven't gone through everything posted on this topic about the
debates, what I have seen so far is not convincing. It seems to me that
the detractors of Chomsky on Cambodia want him to admit that there were
massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia that were nearly as bad as
the media reported. They want him to cry uncle (sam). There's also a
lot of name calling, like left fascist, etc. Many people try to relate
other works by Chomsky into the argument, for instance the worthiness
of the propaganda model. Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
(and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
to size. I don't think that it will hurt Chomsky's reputation.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Charles P. Kalina  
View profile
 More options 3 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Charles P. Kalina <ckal...@capaccess.org>
Date: 2000/07/03
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <8jotr6$m5...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> While I haven't gone through everything posted on this topic about the
> debates, what I have seen so far is not convincing. It seems to me
> that
> the detractors of Chomsky on Cambodia want him to admit that there
> were
> massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia that were nearly as bad as
> the media reported. They want him to cry uncle (sam).

To judge by the title, this thread concerns Chomsky's accuracy, yes?

Therefore, the relevant question is whether his comments about post-war
Cambodia were accurate or not.  If they were not correct, then he
should acknowledge his earlier mistake and correct the error.  If he
doesn't, then it's fair to say that he is not accurate -- which is
evidence that he is not a credible commentator.

There were indeed massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia;  media
reports at the time may have contained minor errors but were
substantively correct.  If Chomsky perceives it as defeat ("crying
uncle") to admit this fact, that's his problem.

[...]

> Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
> (and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
> to size.

Chomsky can hardly be described as a "popular spokesman".  He is not
exactly well-known outside certain intellectual and academic circles,
and among those who do know his work, he finds more detractors than
admirers.

He provides intellectual ammunition and affirmation for a certain
subset of the far left, and among such persons he is no doubt very
popular, but I don't think he convinces many people who didn't already
share his view of the world.  Indeed, his work has become so repetitive
and self-referential that I think affirmation can be its only use.

To say that Chomsky is expected to "cry uncle" implies that his
commentary is substantively accurate, but that he is nonetheless
expected to surrender to some sort of ideological force-majeure.

Certainly one can understand why he (and his partisans) would try to
frame the debate in such favorable terms.  Nevertheless, it begs the
question:  is his commentary generally accurate, or not?

The fact remains that Chomsky has been a poor judge of foreign regimes,
his comments on the Khmer Rouge being only the most grotesque
instance.  Frankly I don't care whether he admits this ("cries uncle")
or not -- old men are entitled to their snits and quibbles.

What interests me is the devotion he inspires among his acolytes
despite this evident lack of judgment and (ahem) accuracy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Adam Bayliss  
View profile
 More options 3 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: Adam Bayliss <rabayl...@students.wisc.edu>
Date: 2000/07/03
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy

Speaking of framing the debate notice the attempt to exclude the
importance of US involvement with the term post war, as if pre-1975
Cambodia did not exist.  Chomsky's comments about Cambodia pertained to
a critique of media reports.  He did not make any error with these
critiques, the media had lied and made repeated mistakes.
> If they were not correct, then he
> should acknowledge his earlier mistake and correct the error.  If he
> doesn't, then it's fair to say that he is not accurate -- which is
> evidence that he is not a credible commentator.

He certainly has, in every way, acknowledged the brutality of the KR (I
am pretty sure I can find a dozen or so quote pointing this fact out).
It seems that the one statement anti-chomskyites see as easy pickins' is
his 1977 Nation bit.  In this case he relied on evidence provided by
credible sources.  
> There were indeed massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia;  media
> reports at the time may have contained minor errors but were
> substantively correct.  

Had 2 million to 3 million people been killed by the KR in 1977?  Were
atrocity photographs not faked?  Did the US press not downplay the
effect of bombing campaigns?  The press was relying on falsified
evidence to make their conclusions.  Should Chomsky have accepted the
conclusions of a media that was using falsified, and erroneous evidence?

>If Chomsky perceives it as defeat ("crying
> uncle") to admit this fact, that's his problem.

How odd.  Chomsky admits the KR were brutal, but denies that this
affects his thesis about the media's portrayal of the events in
Cambodia.  His conclusions are clearly supported by fact: the media did
fake photos, exaggerate numbers without evidence, and downplay the
slaughter in East Timor.  Yet, this newsgroup's ardent critics continue
in their constant silliness of getting him to revoke statements which
were correct, who's trying to get who to say "uncle" here?  

> [...]
> > Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
> > (and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
> > to size.

> Chomsky can hardly be described as a "popular spokesman".  He is not
> exactly well-known outside certain intellectual and academic circles,
> and among those who do know his work, he finds more detractors than
> admirers.

This is true, his circle is limited to those who read the New York
Times, who refer to him as "possibly the most important intellectual of
our time."  As for detractors, every great mind is sure to find more
than are countable (it is the sign that you are doing something right).
You will find that outside America, Chomsky is widely respected, as for
America itself, Mozart never caught on in Salzburg until after his
death.

> He provides intellectual ammunition and affirmation for a certain
> subset of the far left, and among such persons he is no doubt very
> popular, but I don't think he convinces many people who didn't already
> share his view of the world.  Indeed, his work has become so repetitive
> and self-referential that I think affirmation can be its only use.

Unlike your statements here, which offer nothing more than your personal
opinion, Chomsky relies on something more substantive.

> To say that Chomsky is expected to "cry uncle" implies that his
> commentary is substantively accurate, but that he is nonetheless
> expected to surrender to some sort of ideological force-majeure.

> Certainly one can understand why he (and his partisans) would try to
> frame the debate in such favorable terms.  Nevertheless, it begs the
> question:  is his commentary generally accurate, or not?

> The fact remains that Chomsky has been a poor judge of foreign regimes,

You cite his critique of the media's handling of Cambodia (your attacks
are in dispute), perhaps you wish to offer another "foreign regime" in
which you find Chomsky's account deficient?

>  Frankly I don't care whether he admits this ("cries uncle")
> or not -- old men are entitled to their snits and quibbles.

...as are young men to their youthful arrogance.

> What interests me is the devotion he inspires among his acolytes
> despite this evident lack of judgment and (ahem) accuracy.

How fitting to your above comments, that the term "accuracy" might cause
your speech to falter.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
NRN Consulting  
View profile
 More options 6 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: n...@enteract.com (NRN Consulting)
Date: 2000/07/06
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
In article <rNl75.1589$I76.114...@monger.newsread.com>,

John Filiss <jfil...@bestweb.net> wrote:

>I always appreciate constructive and intelligent criticism.

You also enjoy talking to yourself.

>I'm glad the board doesn't appeal to you.

I'm sure I'm in good company, Mr. "Anarchist."

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
James A. Donald  
View profile
 More options 8 Jul 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.fan.noam-chomsky
From: jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
Date: 2000/07/08
Subject: Re: Chomsky's accuracy
    --
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:43:19 GMT, "John Filiss" <jfil...@bestweb.net>
wrote:

> There seems to be a pretty good body of literature on both sides concerning
> Chomsky's accuracy, or lack of it, on the matter of the Khmer Rouge and
> atrocities in Cambodia.  I'm curious to know if there are similar debates
> going on regarding any of Chomsky's other, extensive writings on foreign
> policy.

I have never read anything truthful by Chomsky.  Even when he is
making a case for something that is perfectly true, for example that
Ustashi were really bad guys, he uses made up facts and fraudulent
citations in support of that position.

Cambodia is however a convenient tree to nail him to, because of the
infamous U turn on Cambodia that the left committed when the Soviet
line changed, just as we nailed earlier generation of commies onto
their U turn on Hitler.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     naN4sfts3KBXmUIlhB4budWYFOt7VEgIjeT6kNmI
     4RqaGOIvy+VN70OyIr5NFYIQNPo42Bu4FwP7UPkOc

  ------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald


    Reply to author    Forward