If I hadn’t gone through something yet it’s not because I am choosing not to, I simply have not had time yet, this is fairly dense stuff with a lot of sourcing that is difficult to track down and rate. I haven’t looked at the USNI yet but citing an organization’s own claims of independence isn’t exactly good evidence that they are independent and without bias. (not saying they aren’t as I haven’t had time to look at them yet but if I were to take that as the measure of legitimacy I’d have to accept Fox News as Independent and unbiased.)
The problem is that he claims it’s an official Navy source, when it’s not affiliated with the Navy.
You sir are a scholar worthy of Chomsky’s legacy.:rolleyes: You haven’t looked at it but have already concluded it is biased, and missed the point of the whole thing, which is what Telemark said.
hahahah I think we found a winner!
An obscure yet highly boring opera (the score by Philip Glass does have its moments).
I didnt say anything of the kind, I simply said that using a sources own assertion’s as proof is silly. If these are the kinds of things that bother you about Chomsky you might as well write off every academic ever.
Most academics have not been caught manufacturing quotes and falsely attributing them to people.
Nor have most academics felt the need to praise Holocaust Deniers for engaging in “extensive historical research” and publishing their “findings” nor do they feel the need to insist such Holocaust Deniers are not anti-Semites but “apolitical liberals”.
And, of course, most academics don’t declare “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the gas chambers or denial of the Holocaust.”
Yeah, you did, and you missed the point that Chomsky statement that the USNI Proceedings is the official journal of the US Navy is entirely 100% untrue. The USNI is not the official anything of the US Navy; it is as it says a non-profit , non-partisan organization with no connection to the US government. I was a member myself for a number of years; subscribing to the journal Proceedings makes you a member (and the membership gives a discount on books that they publish, so no reason not to accept the membership). I have never served in the US Navy or any armed service, and the closest I’ve been to sailing the sea is canoeing in rivers and lakes.
You are making a fool of yourself by stating that these are the things that bother me about Chomsky; I’ve made very clear the things that disgust me about Chomsky and you have yet to address them.
again youre reading into my responses things that are not there, I never said what they were, I never looked it up, I have not had time yet, I said that quoting a source as proof of its own legitimacy is absurd. That is all I said, a cite from the organization themselves was used to define their objectivity, if u want to demonstrate somethings objectivity you need outside sources of integrity to do so or you might as well not cite anything.
It’s not defining their legitimacy or objectivity, it’s defining their authority. And you’re wrong, and Chomsky was wrong. Just accept it and move on. You’re going through the dance that Chomsky needs to go through to maintain the facade that he’s not wrong and all it does is make you look like a weasel.
Damn, made me laugh. I tip my hat to you! 
You’ve been ducking behind ‘not having the time to look it up’ for 3 days now and still have not responded to anything of substance. I am reading nothing into your responses; you have barely responded. You have yet again completely missed the point; it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a source, it has everything to do with Chomsky being completely, utterly, demonstrably wrong in calling Proceedings the official journal of the US Navy when it is nothing of the sort. Why on earth you are wasting time with this when you should be looking through all these other sources you claim to have to look through is beyond me. Do you actually imagine that Proceedings secretly is the official journal of the US Navy and they are conspiring to hide that fact?
Which has nothing to do with anything. Nowhere was any claim made of the objectivity or lack thereof of the USNI. What was made was a statement of fact: Chomsky referred to the USNI’s journal Proceedings as the official journal of the US Navy, something that is 100% entirely untrue, demonstrably untrue, that I demonstrated was untrue. Your response has been nonsense about ‘objectivity’. Again, do you think the USNI is actually an official part of the US Navy and government, that Proceedings is the official journal of the US Navy and that they are conspiring to conceal this? If not your entire response on this issue has been one long non sequitur.
I haven’t been dodging anything, i have a life, maybe you don’t, ill get to it when i get to it, of course if you cant understand simple logic i don’t know why i should even respond since it doesnt seem like you’ll even know when you’ve lost an argument.
Being that you haven’t even really addressed, let alone responded to something that shows that Chomsky simply inventing and/or misreading a factual matter? That, in fact, you’ve repeatedly responded with non sequitors instead of a reasoned arument? I don’t think it’s the folks who you’re allegedly going to be debating against who don’t realize they’re losing an argument.
Regardless looking at their vast publications now, the USNI just look like another of the many military media entities that act as surrogates for the US military. Maybe it’s not their official public journal by way of non-profit semantic subterfuge but it seems to be exactly that. They promote the Navy with leadership from the Navy, with funding from donors who support the Navy, with partnerships throughout the DOD and other surrogate entities.
Everyone seems to have something Chomsky says that offends their sensibilities, so they look for these gotchas in his writing which are only gotchas if youre already angry and not willing to think for a second before reacting about what he’s saying.
As far as this http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/hitchens.htm source goes I don’t really understand why I would be expected to respond at all to it. It’s full of elipses and is only a criticism of Hitchens’ Defense of Chomsky that then uses Hitchen’s criticisms of Chomsky as a finale. Is Hitchen’s opinion good or bad? Is it good when it criticizes Chomsky but bad when it defends him? This is like arguing by the ‘telephone game’. If you want to criticize chomsky find the original source material so I can look at that without it being elipsed into unreliability. THis is not a relevant cite, it’s just someone with an ax to grind having fun with scissors.
Especially those of us who have an antipathy to bullshit.
Tell us against how the USNI is the unofficial official journal of the United States Navy. Are there other unofficial official publications? Do they advertise? Or was Chomsky really right because it’s the Official Unofficial Journal of the United States Navy?
That’s it, isn’t it?
The irony, it burns. You realize that ‘I have a life’ is the last refuge on the internet of those unable to come up with any kind of response. Well, next to last; ‘maybe you don’t have a life’ with the optional addition of ‘you must live in your momma’s basement’ is the last refuge. It’s been 3 days since you claimed to be looking through all of these sources.
What in the name of god have you been smoking? The USNI is not part of the US Navy, and Proceedings is not the official journal of the US Navy. These are facts beyond dispute, as is the fact that Chomsky was 100% wrong when he called it such. Here’s a thought experiment for you: if Proceedings was the official journal of the USN, what do you think would have happened to Commander Carlson when he submitted his article accusing the commander of the Vincennes of gross negligence for publication?
This is beyond hopeless; I’ve provided you with direct links to Distortions at Fourth Hand on Chomsky’s own website three times now. You clearly are debating, if it can be called that, in bad faith.
I agree- and this thread has taught me a lot I didn’t know about Chomsky.
The OP does not seem willing to accept or acknowledge even relatively small criticisms of Chomsky, so it seems pretty unlikely that he’d even consider significant ones like sympathy/rationalization of mass murder.