So Chomsky didn't study it...he just made it up. And his faithful cultists believed it.

"Chomsky's articles are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up."

http://reaction.la/chomsdis.htm

mhaze,

There's nothing
wrong in "making it up," as long as you don't
"screw up." In the case of Noam Chomsky -
you have done precisely that!

Noam Chomsky is an eminent American
theoretical linguist, cognitive scientist and
philosopher, who radically changed the arena
of linguistics by assuming language as a
uniquely human biologically based cognitive
capacity. He suggested that innate traits in the
human brain give birth to both language and
grammar.

There's nothing wrong in "making it up,".

Really? OKaaaaaay!

Did you read the article I linked? Did you understand the article I linked?

We weren't talking about his linguistic efforts but his views on history. You raised it.

He might have been OK as a linguist but as an historian he was a mere shrill for communism who was perfectly OK with just creating his own 'facts' while deceiving those anxious to be deceived. Would that be you, Foxy?

mhaze,

Chomsky's comment on history was just that.
Your link was irrelevant.
Chomsky is subject to critique like everyone
else, however one would expect a critique
of Chomsky to be well founded and well
argued. Yours was not.

"Chomsky's comment on history was just that."

Well you're the one who mentioned it as though it was relevant and valid. Good to see you recognise the error of your ways.

" however one would expect a critique
of Chomsky to be well founded and well
argued. Yours was not."

Well if that were so you'd show some examples. Well not you, but someone who knew what they were talking about. Just asserting it wasn't well-founded isn't the same as demonstrating it wasn't well-founded although I suspect you won't understand that.

Sic her, Mhaze. That's my boy.