🚀 go-pugleaf

Noam Chomsky is the person who killed linguistic research in Western
Universities.  He came up with a complicated theory that is basically a
black box model (we don't know and can't know what goes on in the black
box).  Then, having led linguistics down a blind ally, he left it there to
pursue Marxist mumbo jumbo.

I heard Chomsky speak at the University of Florida--he went on for more
about two hours with stuff that could have been taken directly from the
Manifesto.  The gist of his speach was that capitalism brought evil into the
world.  Historically, of course, there's a bit of a problem with this.  He
was invited to speak at a linguistics program round table.  I did not attend
because I was very disillusioned with the Chomsky based (or at least
founded) curriculum.  However, colleagues of mine in the program who
attended said that no one could convince him to talk about linguistics.  He
only wanted to push his political agenda.

My point in relating the political stuff can be summed up in the question,
"Do we want some one whose thinking is so muddled that he sees capitalism as
the root of all evil to be our leader in language issues?"


"Noam Chomsky:  A name that pops up very frequently when studying
>linguistics. But what is so special about what this man had and has to
>say?"