🚀 go-pugleaf

Norm Chomsky may or may not be the Psycholinquistic that made it possible
for organization bias and prejudices to have their day in the sun,  Every
individual worth his "inferential salt" knows that taboo linguistics
exploits victimization and Romance Linguists creates complexity.  The point
that seems to be exasperating to many readers of my posts is, the harder I
try, to find a bridge, to explain the wider the chasm becomes.  Norm Chomsky
stated that linguistics is basic in our origin.  We do not develop the
knowledge to speak we develop the mechanisms to communicate.
 A victimized individual has an occulsionary  mask to information, not an
attention deficit.  Therefore, as degraded image is derived from paranoid
ideation the more taboo restrictive and legitimate the paranoid ideation the
more necessary it is use legitimate resources to allow those suffering the
opportunities deserved.  This should not be confused with capitalism or
communism.  An organizationally biased, usurping, lecherous aversive
individual, such as expressed by William Shakespeare, has pissed off many
people.  Such as powerful Psychological Programs being develop to empower
the victimizers in the world rather than ameliorate their victimization. The
probably of Chomsky's being pissed at a political agenda is no more
difficult to understand than President Clinton saying, early in his first
term, "Do not discard the programs, they are good.  The administration of
these programs(e.g. Affirmative Action and Equal Rights Amendment) that is
the failure."  The same insights can be made of the Philosophy of
Pragmatism.  The Shakespearean blue streak could hardly cuss louder.  The
comments of the Pragmatic Nemesis suggests that it is faulted.  Legitimate
effort deserves legitimate opportunity, is faulted?  In what warped dialect
is that true?  How about the individual's in first class flight, using names
such as Nazi to describe Skinner.  What a Goddamn crock of horseshit.  There
are stupid fuckers that still use this defense to shut up advocates of this
simple truth's extension from Pavlov to Biofeedback(applying the
instrumental to the classical.)  Please tell me, who cares if
Psychophysiologists think psychiatrist are slobs because of termination of
expectation.  If I feel fucked up I am going to see a Psychiatrist.  It does
not mean I do not understand the Psychophysiologists point of view.  The
profanity here is used to make a valid point.  If it alienates others from
my point, tough shit.  I didn't work my ass off just to have some piece of
shit, use the blow off standard defenses, to social climb on my shit. I
personally feel that Skinner's objections to Chomsky's Linguistics may have
been more a sign of the times than what might boil down to be true innate
differences.  I'm sure only time will tell.  In the mean time why not give
these two demigods the, "tip of our hat." that they deserve.
Larry Cardin
I still believe if "Eat Shit and Die" is Ameloriated to;  "Eat, Shit and
Die," which can be defined as, "eat, drink and be merry,  how appropriate;"
why should anyone care how I say it, eh?

MindSpring User wrote in message <70tqco$oon$1@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>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?"
>
>
>