Funny, I didn't find him convincing & found his opponents much more effective. Maybe because I'm not a die hard fan of nonsense views on politics & false arguments. It's a well known fact in arguing --- if you aren't trying for real truth, & only aiming to "win" & make others look foolish, you can appear more effective. Truth & taking total views into account & aiming for solutions, can be a real obstacle in an argument. Pay close attention to dictators who were voted in originally... it's very much their style (this aim to win, ignore the truth). It's always easy to "put holes" in arguments... it's much harder to have real ideas & solutions. That's why it's a different game to campaign for office, than to run the office. It's why Chomsky manipulates well, but anyone skilled or intelligent is quickly put off by his arguments... unless they have an axe to grind with Israel or whatever & don't fact check or care about reality. =================== Chomsky - isn't so brillant & many feel that way. He's self congratulatory - a different concept. So Chomsky runs off people (MIT) -- that's generally the sign of an egomanic who's threatened because his work isn't all there... and needs to have control instead. Any one in math research will tell you, the greatly skilled folks have no trouble working together - even if they see things differently. It's only the facade ones that play games. Scaerdrys I'm a math graduate -- which is why I can see through the manipulation & lack of logic in Chomsky's comments. Including even in linguistics. When you have to use "large" words & overly complicate explanations, you're blowing smoke screens every time.... which was obvious when I persisted through to the core.
