Whatever my wavelength I really should 'know' better

[Paul Nightingale]

John's case rests on two inter-related assumptions:

1. He has privileged access to the pure, unadulterated, capital-T Truth; and
consequently
2. Anyone who disagrees is wrong or, worse, part of the global Stalinist
conspiracy.

Well, none of us is God; we're all reading texts of one kind or another.

Which brings me to the Guardian's attempted hatchet-job, and the implication
that Emma Brockes' poorly-written piece should be taken seriously.

A few points are worth making:

1. The article misrepresented Chomsky and did so ineptly; the Guardian
admitted it, end of story.

2. Possibly their lawyers said it could be considered libellous: just a
thought. Either way, they were embarrassed and that is why it was removed
from the website. It is laughable to suggest that Chomsky (and/or the global
Stalinist conspiracy) could bully the paper into doing do.

3. On the massacre, with or without quotation marks ... logic suggests that,
were Chomsky guilty as charged, they could/should have found evidence that
would have left him defenceless. That they (Brockes, someone else?) had to
so crudely edit what he said in order to damn him indicates that no such
evidence exists.

4. The original article can be found at:
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20051031.htm. If you do bother read it,
consider the tone, smug, and the intended Guardian reader, people who like
to think themselves politically progressive but can't be bothered to read
Chomsky. It mocks Chomsky in order to mock the concept of intellectual, very
English middle-class: Having read Brockes they can go along to their
dinner-parties and agree, were his name to be mentioned, that Chomsky isn't
worth taking seriously. (For pretty much the same reason, of course, they
don't have to bother reading Pynchon after the inevitable poor reviews.)