joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:

>
> An interview with Noam Chomsky:
> >
> > http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2804
> >
>
> This idiotarian should have stuck to generational linguistics, where
> at least his obfuscations could be academically concealed.
>
> >
> > Also posted on the BBS here:
> >
> > http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7;action=display;thread
> > id =27624
> >
>
>
> [rhinoceros]
> If I didn't know what a scholar and a gentleman you are, Joe, I could
> have mistaken that for an ad hominem argument.
>
It's simply meant to point out that politics is not Chomsky's original area
of expertise, but that to go into political commentary armed with the
sophistry he has gained from his study of language and his ability to
rhetorically sway people that he's gained from that expertise, regardless
of whether his premises or conclusions are correct, has to be a
bookselling and moneymaking move for him - certainly far beyond the
money he could make selling books that concern realms of obscure
academia where he has been conclusively superceded by Lakoff &
Johnson.
>
>

I don't know much about Chomsky - that's the first essay by him that I've read - but I don't see how he qualifies as an 'idiotarian', judging from what he wrote here. Care to elaborate?