User talk:Rdlevine

Linguistic Criticism of Noam Chomsky

What we want is to have one section of the linguistic wars, the early GM battle, and then others about newer ones. Please separate out the newer critiques that don't belong in the early critiques section. Chrisrus (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing your name

I feel you are being misrepresented by the criticism of Noam Chomsky article, so I am removing your name. However, I believe your criticism of Noam Chomsky is notable and should have be clearly summed up in such a way that lay readers can understand it. I invite you to write this section. It should be written without details "Chomsky said that something called X was not correct, and attacked those who proposed it as "foolish" (cite). Two years later, he published a theory that was the same as theory X saying that he had come up with it (cite), in effect admitting that his earlier attack on Dr. Jane Doe was uncalled for. He never took boack what he'd said about her, gave her credit, or admitted she was right, or apologized...." and so on. This type of critique should be separated out from the "general semantics" stuff.

Do you approve my removing your name from the article? Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)