I remember reading – and abandoning mid-way – an interview with Chomsky. His major technique in responding to questions seemed to be attacking/redefining how and why the questions were being asked, and bending them to his whim of the moment. It reminded me irresistibly of Humpty Dumpty’s dictum : ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” But on an even grander scale, as he was claiming the same right to his interviewer’s words. Count me an unsophisticated boob if you have to, but I’m deeply and incurably suspicious of anyone who not only thinks he owns the debate, but the whole concept and rules of debating itself.
(BTW, Noam? 2 negatives = positive? Slapped onto English by 18th century Latin-lovin’ grammarians’ decree, not an essential feature of the language. Plenty of examples of double negatives = intensified negative before then. STILL done and understood in colloquial. No meaningful intrinsic philosophical paradox, just the results of snotty intellectuals trying to dictate the rules – like you, ass.)
