text:
John Chrysostom

Saint John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407), Greek Ioannes Chrysostomos, early Christian theologian, archbishop of Constantinople, saint. "Chrysostom" means "Golden-mouthed", a tribute to his exemplary talent as an orator. He is known for his preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities. His writings were originally written in Greek.

Quotes

 * O most grateful burden, which comforts them that carry it! The burdens of earthly masters gradually wear out the strength of those who carry them; but the burden of Christ assists the bearers of it, because we carry not grace, but grace us.
 * Reported in Josiah Hotchkiss Gilbert, Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers (1895), p. 98

 * I beg that, chiefest of all, you will remember constantly that not to share our own riches with the poor is a robbery of the poor, and a depriving them of their livelihood; and that that which we possess is not only our own, but also theirs. If our minds are disposed in accordance with this truth, we shall freely use all our possessions; we shall feed Christ while hungering here, and we shall lay up great treasures there.
 * Discourse 2 on the Rich Man and Lazarus, Chapter 6

 * [T]he Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer." … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them." (Luke 19:27)
 * Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. … On this account Stephen said: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit", not only by transgressing the Law but also by wishing to observe it at the wrong time.
 * Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homily 1

 * The Master is gracious and receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first. He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one He gives, and to the other He is gracious. He both honors the work and praises the intention.
 * Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness. Let no one lament their poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn their transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Saviour's death has set us free.
 * By descending into hades, He made hades captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. ... It took a body, and met God face to face. ... Christ is risen, and you are overthrown! Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen! Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen, and life reigns! Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb! For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the first-fruits of them that have slept.
 * Paschal Homily
 * Both English Wikipedia and English Wikisource contain the whole text of this homily. In Byzantine Rite churches, the whole homily is read out annually as part of Paschal Matins service.

 * For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force...it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice.
 * On the Priesthood, Book II

 * And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify thy hand with the blow...
 * Homilies on the Statues, Homily I

 * If you are a Christian, no earthly city is yours. Of our City ‘the Builder and Maker is God.’ Though we may gain possession of the whole world, we are withal but strangers and sojourners in it all. We are enrolled in heaven: our citizenship is there! Let us not, after the manner of little children, despise things that are great, and admire those which are little! Not our city’s greatness, but virtue of soul is our ornament and defence. If you suppose dignity to belong to a city, think how many persons must partake in this dignity, who are whoremongers, effeminate, depraved and full of ten thousand evil things, and at last despise such honour! But that City above is not of this kind; for it is impossible that he can be a partaker of it, who has not exhibited every virtue.
 * Homilies on the Statues, Homily XVII

 * Just as maniacs, who never enjoy tranquility, so also he who is resentful and retains an enemy will never have the enjoyment of any peace; incessantly raging and daily increasing the tempest of his thoughts calling to mind his words and acts, and detesting the very name of him who has aggrieved him. Do you but mention his enemy, he becomes furious at once, and sustains much inward anguish; and should he chance to get only a bare sight of him, he fears and trembles, as if encountering the worst evils. Indeed, if he perceives any of his relations, if but his garment, or his dwelling, or street, he is tormented by the sight of them. For as in the case of those who are beloved, their faces, their garments, their sandals, their houses, or streets, excite us, the instant we behold them; so also should we observe a servant, or friend, or house, or street, or any thing else belonging to those we hate and hold our enemies, we are stung by all these things; and the strokes we endure from the sight of each one of them are frequent and continual. What is the need then of sustaining such a siege, such torment and such punishment? For if hell did not threaten the resentful, yet for the very torment resulting from the thing itself we ought to forgive the offences of those who have aggrieved us. But when deathless punishments remain behind, what can be more senseless than the man, who both here and there brings punishment upon himself, while he thinks to be revenged upon his enemy!
 * As it is not to be imagined that the fornicator and the blasphemer can partake of the sacred Table, so it is impossible that he who has an enemy, and bears malice, can enjoy the holy Communion.… I forewarn, and testify, and proclaim this with a voice that all may hear! ‘Let no one who hath an enemy draw near the sacred Table, or receive the Lord’s Body! Let no one who draws near have an enemy! Do you have an enemy? Draw not near! Do you wish to draw near? Be reconciled, and then draw near, and touch the Holy Thing!’
 * We are commanded to have only one enemy, the devil. With him never be reconciled! But with a brother, never be at enmity in thy heart.
 * Homilies on the Statues, Homily XX

 * Nothing does so much turn our life upside down, as delay and procrastination in the performance of our good works. Nay, this has often caused us to lose all.
 * Homily 16 on Matthew, 13.

 * While the tongue through shame often pours not forth all its wickedness at once, the heart having no human witness, fearlessly gives birth to whatever evils it will.
 * Homily 42 on Matthew

 * Do not now, I warn you, seize upon the privilege of the Only Begotten. For Him is the throne of judgment reserved. Would you however be a judge? You have a court of judgment which has great profit, and bears no blame. Make consideration, as judge, to sit down upon your conscience, and bring before it all your transgressions, search out the sins of your soul, and exact with strictness the account thereof, and say, wherefore did you dare to do this and that? ... Answer for yourself, not to accuse; look to your own matters, do not those of others.
 * ibid., 2.-3.

 * It is not a head in a charger that the dancers of our time ask, but the souls of them that sit at the feast. For in making them slaves, and leading them to unlawful loves, and besetting them with harlots, they do not take off the head, but slay the soul... For you will not surely tell me, that when full of wine, and drunken, and looking at a woman who is dancing and uttering base words, thou dost not feel anything towards her, neither art hurried on to profligacy, overcome by your lust... For though the daughter of Herodias be not present, yet the devil, who then danced in her person, in theirs also holds his choirs now, and departs with the souls of those guests taken captive.
 * Homily 48 on Matthew, 3.
 * The last sentence is often quoted in the paraphrased form “Where dance is, there is the devil.”

 * Do you wish to honor the Body of the Savior? Do not despise it when it is naked. Do not honor it in church with silk vestments while outside it is naked and numb with cold. He who said, “This is my body,” and made it so by his word, is the same that said, “You saw me hungry and you gave me no food. As you did it not to the least of these, you did it not to me.” Honor him then by sharing your property with the poor. For what God needs is not golden chalices but golden souls.
 * Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily L

 * Is it not excessively ridiculous to seek the good opinion of those whom you would never wish to be like?
 * Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John, Homily III

 * Beloved, we need much care, much watchfulness, to be able to look into the depth of the Divine Scriptures. For it is not possible to discover their meaning in a careless way, or while we are asleep, but there needs close search, and there needs earnest prayer, that we may be enabled to see some little way into the secrets of the divine oracles.
 * Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John, Homily XXI

 * One who knows that he is in need, is very grateful when he obtains assistance; but one who has not a sense of his need, will never have a plain and clear sense of the benefit.
 * Homily 22 on the Gospel of John, John 2:4

 * Abstinence is the mother of pleasure as well as health, while repletion is the source and root not only of diseases, but of displeasure. For where there is satiety there desire cannot be, and where there is no desire, how can there be pleasure?
 * ibid., John 2:8-10

 * He that practiceth showing mercy to him that needeth, will soon cease from covetousness, he who continues in giving to the poor, will soon cease from anger, and will never even be high-minded. For as the physician continually tending wounded persons is easily sobered, beholding human nature in the calamities of others; so we, if we enter upon the work of aiding the poor, shall easily become truly wise, and shall not admire riches, nor deem present things any great matter, but despise them all, and soaring aloft to heaven, shall easily obtain the eternal blessings, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
 * Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John, Homily LXXXI

 * I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an affair that requires a great mind.
 * Homily III on Acts 1:12

 * Wherever impudent assurance exists, it has but one object in view, to speak at all hazards, it cares not what.
 * Where an action is done for glory, all is worthless. For though a man possess all, yet if he have not the mastery over this (lust), he forfeits all claim to true philosophy, he is in bondage to the more tyrannical and shameful passion. Contempt of glory; this it is that is sufficient to teach all that is good, and to banish from the soul every pernicious passion.
 * Homily 4 on the Acts of the Apostles

 * Nothing like alms: great is the virtue of this practice, when the alms is poured forth from pure stores; for it is like a fountain discharging mud, when it issues from unjust stores, but when from just gains, it is as a limpid and pure stream... This fountain is better than that in Paradise (Genesis 2:10); a fountain, not dividing into four heads, but reaching unto Heaven itself: this gives birth to that river which springs up into eternal life (John 4:14): on this let Death light, and like a spark it is extinguished by the fountain: such, wherever it drops, are the mighty blessings it causes. This quenches, even as a spark, the river of fire: this so strangles that worm, as naught else can do. (Mark 9:44) He that has this, shall not gnash his teeth... Better to possess such a fountain, than to have fountains running with gold.
 * Homily 22 on the Acts of the Apostles

 * Yet of old the matter seemed even to be a law, and a certain law-giver among them bade the domestic slaves neither to use ointments when dry (i.e. except in bathing) nor to keep youths, giving the free this place of honor, or rather of shamefulness. Yet they, however, did not think the thing shameful, but as being a grand privilege, and one too great for slaves, the Athenian people, the wisest of people, and Solon who is so great among them, permitted it to the free alone. And sundry other books of the philosophers may one see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature: but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this were worse than any punishment. Yet if you say they found pleasure in it, you tell me what adds to the vengeance. For suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully.
 * But lo! now they that have run into this fury have done more grievously by themselves. For it is not the same thing to change into the nature of women, as to continue a man and yet to have become a woman; or rather neither this nor that. But if you would know the enormity of the evil from other grounds, ask on what account the lawgivers punish them that make men eunuchs, and you will see that it is absolutely for no other reason than because they mutilate nature. And yet the injustice they do is nothing to this. For there have been those that were mutilated and were in many cases useful after their mutilation. But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who has been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. How many hells shall be enough for such? But if you scoff at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom
 * Homily 4 on Romans

 * He loved us when we hated Him, and also continues to love us... And how comes it, some will say, that one who is our Friend threatens hell, and punishment, and vengeance? It is owing to His loving us alone. For all He does and is busied with, is with a view to strike out your wickedness, and to refrain with fear, as with a kind of bridle, your inclinableness to the worse side, and by blessings and by pains recovering you from your downward course, and leading you up to Him, and keeping you from all vice, which is worse than hell.
 * Homily 9 on Romans

 * Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. Do you see that from drunkenness comes fornication, from fornication adultery, from adultery murder? Indeed, it is something worse than murder and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you contemn the gift of God, and fight with His laws? What is a curse, do you seek as though it were a blessing? Do you make the anteroom of birth the anteroom of slaughter? Do you teach the woman who is given to you for the procreation of offspring to perpetrate killing? That she may always be beautiful and lovable to her lovers, and that she may rake in more money, she does not refuse to do this, heaping fire on your head; and even if the crime is hers, you are the cause. Hence also arise idolatries. To look pretty many of these women use incantations, libations, philtres, potions, and innumerable other things. Yet after such turpitude, after murder, after idolatry, the matter still seems indifferent to many men–even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks, invocations of demons, incantations of the dead, daily wars, ceaseless battles, and unremitting contentions.
 * Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans [PG 60:626-27]

 * A servant, indeed, one will be able perhaps to bind down by fear; nay, not even for him, for he will soon leave you. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and threats, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband have if he dwells with his wife as with a slave? Yea, even though you suffer everything on her account, do not scold her; for neither did Christ do this to the Church.
 * Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XX

 * The Priest is the common father, as it were, of all the world; it is proper therefore that he should care for all, even as God, Whom he serves.
 * Nothing is so apt to draw men under teaching, as to love, and be loved.
 * Homily 6 on First Timothy

 * For what advantage is it, that the world enjoys profound peace, if thou art at war with thyself? This then is the peace we should keep. If we have it, nothing from without will be able to harm us. And to this end the public peace contributes no little: whence it is said, ‘That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.’ But if any one is disturbed when there is quiet, he is a miserable creature. Seest thou that He speaks of this peace which I call the third (inner, ed.) kind? Therefore when he has said, ‘that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life,’ he does not stop there, but adds ‘in all godliness and honesty.’ But we cannot live in godliness and honesty, unless that peace be established. For when curious reasonings disturb our faith, what peace is there? or when spirits of uncleanness, what peace is there?
 * Homilies on Timothy, Homily VII

 * Tell me, then, whence are you rich? From whom did you receive it, and from whom he who transmitted it to you? From his father and his grandfather. But can you, ascending through many generations, show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning made not one man rich, and another poor. Nor did He afterwards take and show to one treasures of gold, and deny to the other the right of searching for it: but He left the earth free to all alike. Why then, if it is common, have you so many acres of land, while your neighbor has not a portion of it? ... Is not the earth God's, and the fullness thereof? If then our possessions belong to one common Lord, they belong also to our fellow-servants. The possessions of one Lord are all common. Do we not see this the settled rule in great houses? To all is given an equal portion of provisions, for it proceeds from the treasures of their Lord. And the house of the master is opened to all. The king's possessions are all common, as cities, market-places, and public walks. We all share them equally. ... We are all formed with the same eyes, the same body, the same soul, the same structure in all respects, all things from the earth, all men from one man, and all in the same habitation. But these are not enough to shame us. Other things then (as we have said) He has made common, as baths, cities, market-places, walks. And observe, that concerning things that are common there is no contention, but all is peaceable. But when one attempts to possess himself of anything, to make it his own, then contention is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant, that when God brings us together in every way, we are eager to divide and separate ourselves by appropriating things, and by using those cold words mine and yours.
 * Homily 12 on First Timothy

Quotes about Chrysostom

 * A bright, cheerful, gentle soul; a sensitive heart, a temperament open to emotion and impulse; and all this elevated, refined, transformed by the touch of heaven,—such was St. John Chrysostom; winning followers, riveting affections, by his sweetness, frankness, and neglect of self. In his labours, in his preaching, he thought of others only.
 * Newman, John Cardinal, "St. Chrysostom" profile, The Newman Reader, Rambler: 1859 available online (see esp. chapter 2)

 * His oratorical power was but the instrument, by which he readily, gracefully, adequately expressed,—expressed without effort and with felicity,—the keen feelings, the living ideas, the earnest practical lessons which he had to communicate to his hearers. He spoke, because his heart, his head, were brimful of things to speak about. His elocution corresponded to that strength and flexibility of limb, that quickness of eye, hand, and foot, by which a man excels in manly games or in mechanical skill. It would be a great mistake, in speaking of it, to ask whether it was Attic or Asiatic, terse or flowing, when its distinctive praise was that it was natural. His unrivalled charm, as that of every really eloquent man, lies in his singleness of purpose, his fixed grasp of his aim, his noble earnestness.
 * Newman, John Cardinal, "St. Chrysostom" profile, The Newman Reader, Rambler: 1859 available online (see esp. chapter 2)

Misattributed

 * The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them.
 * No printed sources exist for this prior to 1965, when Dagobert Runes included it in The Jew and The Cross. It appears to be a paraphrase of Eight Homilies Against the Jews

 * What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors!
 * The quote is attributed to Chrysostom in the Malleus Maleficarum (Part I, Question VI), published by Heinrich Kramer in 1486. He cites Chrysostom's homily on Matthew ch. 19 (which would be his Homily LXII on Matthew), but no such quote appears in the homily.

title: John Chrysostom


text:
Shall We Dance? (2004 film)

Shall We Dance is an American motion picture released in 2004. It is a remake of the award-winning Masayuki Suo 1996 Japanese film, Shall We Dansu?.

Dialogue

 * Beverly: We need a witness to our lives. There are a billion people on the planet... I mean, what does anyone's life really mean? But in a marriage, you're promising to care about everything--the good things, the bad things, the terrible things, the mundane things--all of it, all the time, every day. You're saying, 'Your life will not go unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go un-witnessed because I will be your witness.'

 * John Clark: There is nothing wrong with ballroom dancing.

 * Paulina: Shall we dance, Mr. Clark?

Taglines

 * Step out of the ordinary
 * A new comedy about following your own lead.

Cast

 * Richard Gere - John Clark
 * Jennifer Lopez - Paulina
 * Susan Sarandon - Beverly Clark
 * Lisa Ann Walter - Bobbie
 * Stanley Tucci - Link Peterson
 * Anita Gillette - Miss Mitzi
 * Bobby Cannavale - Chic
 * Omar Miller - Vern
 * Tamara Hope - Jenna Clark
 * Stark Sands - Evan Clark
 * Richard Jenkins - Devine
 * Nick Cannon - Scott
 * Karina Smirnoff - Link's Pouty Dance Partner
 * Mýa Harrison - Vern's Fiancée
 * Ja Rule - Hip-Hop Bar Performer
 * Tony Dovolani - Slick Willy
 * Cesar Corrales - Dancer
 * Slavik Kryklyvyy - Paulina's Pro Ballroom (finale)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Shall We Dance? (2004 film)


text:
Hrafnkels saga

Hrafnkels saga or Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða is one of the Icelanders sagas. It tells of struggles between chieftains and farmers in the east of Iceland in the 10th century.

Hrafnkels saga

 * Ek hygg þat hégóma at trúa á goð.
 * Translation: "I think it is folly to have faith in gods. - Hrafnkell Freysgoði

 * Mörgum mundi betr þykkja skjótr dauði en slíkar hrakningar, en mér mun fara sem mörgum öðrum, at lífit mun ek kjósa, ef kostr er. - Hrafnkell Freysgoði
 * Translation: Many would prefer a quick death to such misfortune but I will do as many others and choose life if it is an option.

 * Eigi mun ek flýja undan þeim mönnum, er ek hefi ekki til miska gört. - Eyvindr Bjarnason
 * Translation: I will not run away from men to whom I have done no harm.

 * Því verðr engi uppreist yðar ungra manna, at yðr vex allt í augu. - Þorbjörn
 * Translation: "The reason you young men don't get anywhere is that everything seems like such a big deal to you.

title: Hrafnkels saga


text:
Talk:Charles M. Schulz

I have not been an emotional prerson for quite some time. The story of Charles schultz and the memories of Peanuts leave me feeling that the innocents of my childhood disappeared with them

God bless you Charles Schultz God bless you Charlie Brown

Splitting

 * I believe that this page should be split, the quotes by/about Schultz on this page and the quotes from Peanuts on their own (which currently exsists as a redirect here. - Aerobird 01:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea Aerobird. There's enough material to support two pages, with a "See also" section on each, referring to one another. ~ UDScott 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is done. :-) - Aerobird 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

 * Just remember, once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed.

 * I have a great love for humanity, it's the people that bother me.
 * Linus

title: Talk:Charles M. Schulz


text:
Brevity

Brevity is the quality of being brief in duration.

Quotes

 * I do not object to people looking at their watches when I am speaking. But I strongly object when they start shaking them to make sure they are still going.
 * William Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett, attributed in Robert Andrews, Famous Lines: a Columbia dictionary of familiar quotations (1997).

 * Say what you have to say and the first time you come to a sentence with a grammatical ending--sit down.
 * Winston Churchill

 * THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT - SECRET - 9 August 1940 - WAR CABINET - BREVITY. - Memorandum by the Prime Minister. To do our work, we all have to read a mass of papers. Nearly all of them are far too long. This wastes time, while energy has to be spent in looking for the essential points. I ask my colleagues and their staffs to see to it that their Reports are shorter. (i) The aim should be Reports which set out the main points in a series of short, crisp paragraphs. (ii) If a Report relies on detailed analysis of some complicated factors, or on statistics, these should be set out in an Appendix. (iii) Often an occasion is best met by submitting not a full-dress Report, but an Aide-memoire consisting of headings only, which can be expanded orally if needed. (iv) Let us have an end of such phrases as these, "It is also of importance to bear in mind the following considerations......", or "Consideration should be given to the possibility of carrying into effect......" Most of these woolly phrases are mere padding, which can be left out altogether, or replaced by a single word. Let us not shrink from using the short expressive phrase, even if it is conversational. Reports drawn up on the lines I propose may at first seem rough as compared with the flat surface of officialese jargon. But the saving in time will be great, while the discipline of setting out the real points concisely will prove an aid to clearer thinking. W.S.C.  10 Downing Street. 9th August 1940
 * Winston Churchill Downing Street Memo, 9 August 1940

were able to say it   succinctly.
 * It may be observed,   in a general way, that life would be   better, distinctly If more of the people   with nothing to say
 * Piet Hein, Mist and Moonshine: Grooks V (1973), p. 17

 * Amplification is the vice of modern oratory. It is an insult to an assembly of reasonable men, disgusting and revolting instead of persuading. Speeches measured by the hour, die with the hour.
 * Thomas Jefferson, letter to David Harding, April 20, 1824, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" (1854), ed. Henry Augustine Washington, vol. 7, p. 347

 * Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
 * Literally: I only made this [letter] longer because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter.
 * Translation: I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
 * Blaise Pascal, Provincial Letters: Letter XVI, 1657 (English Translation). Often misattributed to Mark Twain, as well as T.S. Eliot, Cicero, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and others.

 * Brevity is the soul of wit.
 * William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, sc. ii.
 * Parodied as the Reading Digest slogan "Brevity is...wit.", in The Simpsons, "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington", written by George Meyer, (September 26, 1991)
 * Parodies by Dorothy Parker as "Brevity is the soul of Lingerie."

 * Few sinners are saved after the first twenty minutes of a sermon.
 * Commonly attributed to Mark Twain, but not found in any collection of his writings.

 * Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire.
 * The secret of being a bore is to tell everything.
 * Voltaire, "Sixième discours: sur la nature de l'homme," Sept Discours en Vers sur l'Homme (1738).

 * But let the wise be warned against too great readiness at explanation: it multiplies the sources of mistake, lengthening the sum for reckoners sure to go wrong.
 * George Eliot, Middlemarch (1871).

 * "Sie wissen, dass ich langsam schreibe, allein dies kommt hauptsächlich daher, weil ich mir nie anders gefallen kann, als wenn in kleinem Raum möglichst viel ist, und kurz zu schreiben viel mehr Zeit kostet als lang."
 * Translation: You know that I write slowly. This is chiefly because I am never satisfied until I have said as much as possible in a few words, and writing briefly takes far more time than writing at length.
 * Schreiben Gauß an Schumacher, Göttingen, 2. 4. 1833. In Christian August Friedrich Peters (Hrsg.): Briefwechsel zwischen C. F. Gauss und H. C. Schumacher Band 2, Gustav Esch, Altona 1860, S. 328

title: Brevity


text:
Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs is a 1992 film about a group of ruthless criminals who gather at their warehouse hideout after a botched diamond store heist, which left two of their number missing or dead, and soon begin to realize that there is a police informant among them.
 * Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Every "dog" has its day.Taglines

Dialogue

 * Mr. Brown: Let me tell you what Like a Virgin is about. It's all about a girl who digs a guy with a big dick. The entire song. It's a metaphor for big dicks.
 * Mr. Blonde: No, no. It's about a girl who is very vulnerable. She's been fucked over a few times. Then she meets some guy who's really sensitive...
 * Mr. Brown: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... Time out, Greenbay. Tell that fuckin' bullshit to the tourists.
 * Joe Cabot: [looking at his address book] Toby... Who the fuck is Toby?
 * Mr. Brown: Like a Virgin is not about some sensitive girl who meets a nice fella. That's what True Blue is about. Granted, no argument about that.
 * Mr. Orange: Which one is True Blue?
 * Nice Guy Eddie: You ain't heard True Blue? It was a big ass hit for Madonna. I don't even follow this Tops of the Pops shit, and even I've heard of True Blue.
 * Mr. Orange: Look, asshole, I didn't say I ain't heard of it. All I asked was how does it go? Excuse me for not being the world's biggest Madonna fan.
 * Mr. Blonde: Personally, I can do without her.
 * Mr. Blue: I used to like her early stuff. Borderline - but once she got off with that Papa Don't Preach phase, I tuned out.
 * Mr. Brown: You guys are, like, making me lose my... train of thought here. I was saying something, what was it?
 * Joe Cabot: Oh, Toby's that little Chinese girl. What was her last name?
 * Mr. White: What's that?
 * Joe Cabot: It's an old address book I found in a coat I haven't worn in a coon's age. What was that name?
 * Mr. Brown: What the fuck was I talking about?
 * Mr. Pink: You said 'True Blue' was about a guy... er.... a sensitive girl who meets a nice guy, but 'Like a Virgin' was a metaphor for big dicks.
 * Mr. Brown: O.K., let me tell you what Like a Virgin's about. It's all about this cooze who's a regular fuck machine, I'm talking morning, day, night, afternoon: dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick, dick.
 * Mr. Blue: How many dicks is that?
 * Mr. White: A lot.
 * Mr. Brown: Then one day she meets this John Holmes motherfucker and it's like, whoa baby, I mean this cat is like Charles Bronson in The Great Escape; he's digging tunnels. Now, she's gettin' the serious dick action and she's feeling something she ain't felt since forever. Pain. Pain.
 * Joe Cabot: Chu? Toby Chu?
 * Mr. Brown: It hurts. It hurts her. It shouldn't hurt her, you know her pussy should be Bubble Yum by now, but when this cat fucks her it hurts. It hurts, just like it did the first time. You see the pain is reminding the fuck machine what it once was like to be a virgin. Hence, "Like a Virgin."

 * Mr. Blonde: Joe, you want me to shoot this guy for you?
 * Mr. White: Shit, you shoot me in a dream, you better wake up and apologize.

 * Nice Guy Eddie: C'mon, throw in a buck!
 * Mr. Pink: Uh-uh, I don't tip.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: You don't tip?
 * Mr. Pink: I don't believe in it.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: You don't believe in tipping?
 * Mr. Blue: You know what these chicks make? They make shit.
 * Mr. Pink: Don't give me that. She don't make enough money, she can quit.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: I don't even know a fucking Jew who'd have the balls to say that. Let me just get this straight: you don't ever tip, huh?
 * Mr. Pink: I don't tip because society says I have to. Alright, I mean I'll tip if somebody really deserves a tip. If they really put forth the effort, I'll give them something extra. But I mean, this tipping automatically, it's for the birds. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, they're just doing their job.
 * Mr. Blue: Hey, this girl was nice.
 * Mr. Pink: She was OK. But she wasn't anything special.
 * Mr. Blue: What's special? Take you in the back and suck your dick?
 * [They all laugh]
 * Nice Guy Eddie: I'd go over twelve percent for that.
 * Mr. Pink: Look, I ordered coffee, alright? And we been here a long fucking time, and she's only filled my cup three times. I mean, when I order coffee, I want it filled six times.
 * Mr. Blonde: Six times? Well, what if she's too fucking busy?
 * Mr. Pink: The words "too fucking busy" shouldn't be in a waitress' vocabulary.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Excuse me Mr. Pink, but the last fucking thing you need's another cup of coffee.
 * Mr. Pink: Jesus Christ. I mean, these ladies aren't starving to death. They make minimum wage. You know, I used to work minimum wage, and when I did, I wasn't lucky enough to have a job that society deemed tipworthy.
 * Mr. Blue: You don't care if they're counting on your tips to live?
 * Mr. Pink: [rubbing his middle finger and thumb together] You know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses.
 * Mr. White: You don't have any idea what you're talking about. These people bust their ass. This is a hard job.
 * Mr. Pink: So is working at McDonald's, but you don't feel the need to tip them, do ya? Well why not? They're serving you food. But no, society says don't tip these guys over here, but tip these guys over here. That's bullshit!
 * Mr. White: Waitressing is the number one occupation for female non-college graduates in this country. It's the one job basically any woman can get and make a living on. The reason is because of their tips.
 * Mr. Pink: Fuck all that.
 * Mr. Brown: [laughing] Jesus Christ.
 * Mr. Pink: I mean, I'm very sorry the government taxes their tips, that's fucked up. That ain't my fault. It would appear to me that waitresses are one of the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a regular basis. I mean, if you show me a piece of paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. Put it to a vote, I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball. And this non-college bullshit you're givin' me, I got two words for that: learn to fuckin' type, 'cause if you're expecting me to help out with the rent, you're in for a big fuckin' surprise.
 * Mr. Orange: He's convinced me. Gimme my dollar back!
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Hey! Leave the dollars there.

 * Mr. Pink: I tagged a couple of cops. Did you kill anybody?
 * Mr. White: A few cops.
 * Mr. Pink: No real people?
 * Mr. White: Just cops.

 * Mr. White: Relax. Have a cigarette.
 * Mr. Pink: I quit.
 * Mr. White: Alright.
 * Mr. Pink: Why, you got one?

 * Mr. Pink: We ain't taking him to a hospital.
 * Mr. White: If we don't, he'll die.
 * Mr. Pink: And I'm very sad about that. But some fellas are lucky, and some ain't.

 * Mr. White: You better start talkin', asshole! Cause we got shit we need to talk about. We're already freaked out, we need you actin' freaky like we need a fuckin' bag on our hip.
 * Mr. Blonde: [calmly] OK, let's talk.
 * Mr. White: We think we got a rat in the house.
 * Mr. Pink: I guarantee we got a rat in the house!
 * Mr. Blonde: What makes you say that?
 * Mr. White: Is that supposed to be funny?
 * Mr. Pink: Look, we think this place ain't safe.
 * Mr. White: This place just ain't secure anymore. We're leaving, you should go with us.
 * Mr. Blonde: Nobody's going anywhere.
 * Mr. White: [about Mr. Blonde] Piss on this fucking turd! [To Mr. Pink] We're outta here.
 * Mr. Blonde: Don't take another step, Mr. White.
 * Mr. White: [screams] Fuck you, maniac! It's your fuckin' fault we're in this trouble!
 * Mr. Blonde: [calmly to Mr. Pink] What's this guy's problem?
 * Mr. White: What's my problem? Yeah, I gotta fuckin' problem! I gotta big fuckin' problem with any trigger-happy madman who almost gets me shot!
 * Mr. Blonde: What the fuck are you talking about?
 * Mr. White: That fucking shooting spree in the store, remember?!
 * Mr. Blonde: [shrugs] Fuck 'em. They set off the alarm. They deserve what they got.
 * Mr. White: You almost killed me! ASSHOLE! If I had known what kind of guy you were, I never would've agreed to work with you.
 * Mr. Blonde: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?
 * Mr. White: What was that? I'm sorry, I didn't catch it. Would you repeat it?
 * Mr. Blonde: Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite? [throws away his drink]
 * Mr. Pink: Oh, Christ, hey, look, you two assholes, calm the fuck down! Hey, come on, are we on a playground here, huh?! [pause] Am I the only professional?! You fuckin' guys are acting like a bunch of fuckin' niggers! You work with niggers, huh? Just like you two, always sayin' they're gonna kill each other.
 * Mr. White: [to Mr. Pink] You said yourself you thought about taking him out!
 * Mr. Blonde: [menacing] You fuckin' said that?
 * Mr. Pink: Yeah, I did, OK? I did. But that was then. Right now, this guy is the only one I completely trust. He's too fuckin' homicidal to be workin' with the cops.
 * Mr. White: You takin' his side?
 * Mr. Pink: NO! Fuck sides, man! What we need here is a little solidarity! Somebody's stickin' a red hot poker up our asses, and I wanna know whose name's on the handle! Now I know I'm no piece of shit... [referring to Mr. White] And I'm pretty sure you're OK... [referring to Mr. Blonde] And I'm fuckin' positive you're on the level. So let's try and figure out who the bad guy is, alright?
 * Mr. Blonde: [calming down, chuckling] Wow, that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan, aren't ya? Me too, I love that guy. My heart's beatin' so fast, I'm about to have a heart attack here.

 * Mr. Pink: I don't wanna kill anybody. But if I gotta get out that door, and you're standing in my way, one way or the other, you're gettin' outta my way.

 * Nice Guy Eddie: If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so!

 * Mr. Blonde: Either he's alive or he's dead, or the cops got him... or they don't.

 * Mr. Blonde: Mr. Blonde: Listen kid, I'm not gonna bullshit you, all right? I don't give a good fuck what you know, or don't know, but I'm gonna torture you anyway, regardless. Not to get information. It's amusing, to me, to torture a cop. You can say anything you want cause I've heard it all before. All you can do is pray for a quick death, which you ain't gonna get. [prepares his razor] You ever listen to K-Billy's "Super Sounds of the Seventies" weekend? It's my personal favorite.

 * Mr. Blonde: [about to light the cop on fire] Have some fire, scarecrow.

 * Mr. Orange: This is a very weird situation. 'Cause I don't know if you remember back in '86 there was a major fucking drought. Nobody had anything. People were living on resin... smoking the wood in their pipes for months. This chick had a bunch. And she's begging me to sell it. So I told her I wasn't going to be Joe the potman anymore, but I would take a little bit and sell it to my close, close, close friends. She agreed to that, said we'd keep the same arrangement as before; 10%, free pot for me, as long as I helped her out that weekend. She had a brick of weed she was selling, she didn't want to go to the buy alone. Her brother usually goes with her, but he's in county unexpectedly.
 * Mr. White: What for?
 * Mr. Orange: His traffic tickets. Got a warrant. They stopped him for something, found warrants on him, took him to county. Now she doesn't walk around alone with all that weed. I don't want to do this. I have a very bad feeling about it. But she keeps asking me, keeps asking me, keeps asking me, finally I said OK 'cause I'm sick of hearing it. Now, we're picking the guy up at the train station...
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Wait a minute. You go to the train station to pick up the buyer with the weed on you?
 * Mr. Orange: The guy needed it right away. Don't ask me why. Anyway, we're get to the station and we're waiting for the guy. I'm carrying the weed in one of those little carry-on bags. I got to take a piss. So I tell the connection I'll be right back, I'm going to the boys' room. So I walk in the mens' room, and who's standing there? Four Los Angeles county sheriffs and a German shepherd.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: They're waiting for you?
 * Mr. Orange: No, they're just a bunch of cops hanging out in the men's room, talking. When I walked through the door, they all stopped what they were talking about and they looked at me.
 * Mr. White: [laughs] That's hard, man. That's a fucking hard situation.
 * Mr. Orange: German shepherd starts barking. He's barking at me. I mean, it's obvious. He's barking at me. Every nerve-ending, all my senses, blood in my veins, everything I have is screaming, "Take off, man! Just bail, just get the fuck out of there!" Panic hits me like a bucket of water. First there's the shock of it--BAM, right in the face. I'm standing there drenched in panic. All these sheriffs looking at me, and they know, man. They can smell it. Sure as that fucking dog can, they can smell it on me.

 * Joe: So, you guys like to tell jokes, huh? Gigglin' and laughin' like a bunch of young broads sittin' in a schoolyard. Well, let me tell a joke. Five guys, sittin' in a bullpen, in San Quentin. All wondering how the fuck they got there. What should we have done, what didn't we do, who's fault is it, is it my fault, your fault, his fault, all that bullshit. Then one of them says, hey. Wait a minute. When we were planning this caper, all we did was sit around tellin' fuckin' jokes! Get the message? Boys, I don't mean to holler at ya. When this caper's over - and I'm sure it'll be a successful one - we'll get down to the Hawaiian Islands, hell, I'll roll and laugh with all of ya. You'll find me a different character down there. Right now, it's a matter of business. With the exception of Eddie and myself, whom you already know, we're going to be using aliases on this job. Under no circumstances do I want any one of you to relate to each other by your Christian names, and I don't want any talk about yourself personally. That includes where you been, your wife's name, where you might've done time, or maybe a bank you robbed in St. Petersburg. All I want you guys to talk about, if you have to, is what you're going to do. That should do it. Here are your names... [pointing to each respective member] Mr. Brown, Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Blue, Mr. Orange, and Mr. Pink.
 * Mr. Pink: Why am I Mr. Pink?
 * Joe: Because, you're a faggot, alright?!
 * [Mr. Brown laughs]
 * Mr. Pink: Why can't we pick our own colors?
 * Joe: No way, no way. Tried it once, doesn't work. You got four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black, but they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way. I pick. You're Mr. Pink. Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow.
 * Mr. Brown: Yeah, but Mr. Brown? That's a little too close to Mr. Shit.
 * Mr. Pink: Mr. Pink sounds like Mr. Pussy. How 'bout if I'm Mr. Purple? That sounds good to me. I'll be Mr. Purple.
 * Joe: You're not Mr. Purple. Some guy on some other job is Mr. Purple. You're Mr. PINK.
 * Mr. White: Who cares what your name is?
 * Mr. Pink: Yeah, that's easy for your to say, you're Mr. White. You have a cool-sounding name. Alright look, if it's no big deal to be Mr. Pink, you wanna trade?
 * Joe: Hey! NOBODY'S trading with ANYBODY. This ain't a goddamn fucking city council meeting, you know. Now listen up, Mr. Pink. There's two ways you can go on this job: my way or the highway. Now what's it gonna be, Mr. Pink?
 * Mr. Pink: Jesus Christ, Joe, fucking forget about it. It's beneath me. I'm Mr. Pink. Let's move on.
 * Joe: I'll move on when I feel like it... All you guys got the goddamn message?... I'm so Goddamn mad, hollering at you guys, I can hardly talk. Pssh. Let's go to work.

 * Mr. Orange: What happens if the manager won't give you the diamonds?
 * Mr. White: When you're dealing with a store like this, they're insured up the ass. They're not supposed to give you any resistance whatsoever. If you get a customer, or an employee, who thinks he's Charles Bronson, take the butt of your gun and smash their nose in. Everybody jumps. He falls down screaming, blood squirts out of his nose, nobody says fucking shit after that. You might get some bitch talkin' shit to you, but give her a look like you're gonna smash her face next, watch her shut the fuck up. Now if it's a manager, that's a different story. Managers know better than to fuck around, so if you get one that's giving you static, he probably thinks he's a real cowboy, so you gotta break that son of a bitch in two. If you wanna know something and he won't tell you, cut off one of his fingers. The little one. Then tell him his thumb's next. After that he'll tell you if he wears ladies underwear. … I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.

 * Nice Guy Eddie: Let me say this out loud, 'cause I wanna get it straight in my head. You're saying that Mr. Blonde was gonna kill you, then when we got back, he was gonna kill us, take the satchel of diamonds, and scram. I'm right about that, right? That's correct? That's your story?
 * Mr. Orange: I swear on my mother's eternal soul that's what happened.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: The man you just killed was just released from prison. He got caught at a company warehouse full of hot items. He could've fuckin' walked. All he had to do was say my dad's name, but he didn't; he kept his fucking mouth shut. And did his fuckin' time, and he did it like a man. He did four years for us. So, Mr. Orange, you're tellin' me this very good friend of mine, who did four years for my father, who in four years never made a deal, no matter what they dangled in front of him, you're telling me that now that this man is free, and we're making good on our commitment to him, he's just gonna decide, out of the fucking blue, TO RIP US OFF?! Why don't you tell me what really happened?
 * Joe: [walks in] What the hell for? It'd just be more bullshit.

 * Joe Cabot: This man set us up.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Dad, I'm sorry, but I don't know what the Hell's happening.
 * Joe Cabot: That's all right, Eddie. I do.
 * Mr. White: What the fuck are you talking about?
 * Joe Cabot: That lump of shit's working with the LAPD.
 * Mr. Orange: Joe, I don't have the slightest fucking idea what you're talking about.
 * Mr. White: Joe, Joe, I don't know what you think you know, but you're wrong.
 * Joe Cabot: Like Hell I am.
 * Mr. White: Joe, trust me on this, you're making a mistake. He's a good kid. I understand you're hot, you're super fucking pissed. We're all real emotional. But you're barking up the wrong tree. I know this man; he wouldn't do that.
 * Joe Cabot: You don't know jack shit. I do: The cocksucker tipped off the cops and got Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue killed.
 * Mr. Pink: Mr. Blue is dead?
 * Joe Cabot: Dead as Dillinger.
 * Mr. White: How do you know all this?
 * Joe Cabot: He was the only one I wasn't a hundred percent on. I should have my fucking head examined going ahead when I wasn't a hundred percent.
 * Mr. White: That's your proof?!
 * Joe Cabot: You don't need proof when you have instinct. I ignored it before, but no more. [Draws a gun and aims at Orange]
 * [Mr. White draws a gun and aims at Joe. And Eddie draws a gun and aims at White.]
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Have you lost your fucking mind?
 * Mr. White: Joe, you're making a terrible mistake. I'm not gonna let you make it.
 * Mr. Pink: [Slowly backing away] Come on, guys. Nobody wants this. We're supposed to be fucking professionals!
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Larry, look...It's been quite a long time, a lot of jobs. There's no need for this, man. Let's just put our guns down, and let's settle this with a fucking conversation.
 * Mr. White: Joe, if you kill that man, you die next. Repeat: If you kill that man, you die next.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: Larry, we have been friends, and you respect my dad, and I respect you. But I will put fucking bullets right through your heart if you don't put that fucking gun down now.
 * Mr. White: Goddamn you, Joe. Don't make me do this.
 * Nice Guy Eddie: LARRY STOP POINTING THAT FUCKING GUN AT MY DAD!
 * [White, Eddie, and Joe all shoot simultaneously.]

Taglines

 * Every "dog" has its day.
 * Five Total Strangers Team Up For The Perfect Crime. They Don't Know Each Other's Name. But They've Got Each Other's Color.
 * Four perfect killers. One perfect crime. Now all they have to fear is each other.
 * Let's go to work.
 * Let's get the job done.

Cast

 * Harvey Keitel - Mr. White/Larry Dimmick
 * Tim Roth - Mr. Orange/Freddy Newandyke
 * Michael Madsen - Mr. Blonde/Vic Vega
 * Steve Buscemi - Mr. Pink
 * Quentin Tarantino - Mr. Brown
 * Edward Bunker - Mr. Blue
 * Chris Penn - Nice Guy Eddie Cabot
 * Lawrence Tierney - Joe Cabot
 * Randy Brooks - Holdaway
 * Kirk Baltz - Marvin Nash

title: Reservoir Dogs


text:
Talk:Noam Chomsky

NC
FYI, I asked prof. Chomsky to take a brief look at this page (22:21, 25 May 2005 revision), and the full Hebrew translation of it that I prepared, and he replied approvingly (also replied approvingly about the wiki concept in general). BTW, he was also asked to look at the wikipedia article(s) some months ago, see w:Talk:Noam_Chomsky/Comments_from_Chomsky, the revision that he looked at was one of the less crazy ones, by comparative standards, I think... iddo999 01:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

translations
If anyone wishes to translate this page to other languages, like I did into Hebrew, it would be great... but it's a tedious task... a more modest option would be to translate a small part of it, and so maybe it would get others to join and translate the rest... iddo999 01:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'any dictator..' quote
Anyone knows the source of this quote? "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the [U.S.] media."
 * Upon further investigation, it seems to be a fake, even though it's widespread on the internet, and not unlike other things he does say. Unless I find a source for it, it should either be removed, or put in a 'misquotations' section. If anyone knows anything about this quote, please post a comment here... thanks... iddo999 01:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mystery solved, it seems. The full quote is: "The uniformity and obedience of the media, which any dictator would admire, thus succeeds in concealing what is plainly the real reason for the US attack, sometimes conceded openly by Administration spokesmen." (Turning the Tide postscript, Sec. 2.3). In theory it might be true that he said the rephrased quote too, e.g. in a talk he gave around the time when the book was published (1985), but anyway, this is pretty much the same quote. iddo999 08:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikiquote as a press source
Some right-wing loony (who cannot read properly) has used quotes that I collected/transcribed for an op-ed titled "WWNCD? What Would Noam Chomsky Do?" - all quotes taken from this wikiquote article, but citing the individual sources for each, without mentioning wikiquote... Not sure what's the circulation of this Washington Examiner newspaper, but it seems pretty big. Perhaps when wikiquote grows further, we could have something similar to w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source. iddo999 6 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

subsections
The way it's organized right now, the 'United States' subsection only contains quotations related to foreign policy, and the politics&economics sections contain quotations related to domestic issues, even if they're primarily/exclusively about the United States. It's probably a good idea to have the broad politics&economics section, so that it'd be easier for others to contribute quotes and put them there, but please don't add boring quotes... iddo999 12:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

problem with one of the external links
I think there's a problem with the link [[Latest ZNet forum replies by Chomsky]] in the external links section. I get the following error:

WebBoard Error: Invalid Board You must specify a valid board using the following syntax:

http://forum.zmag.org/~board_name For example: http://forum.zmag.org/~cooking Note: Cooking may or may not be a valid board. It is used for the example only.

Cookies Turned Off?

You may have also received this page after attempting to log into WebBoard. If this is the case, be sure that your browser is set to accept cookies.

If you have any questions, please email the WebBoard Administrator.

Alex 14:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm... Did you first follow the 'log in as a guest' link at the technical note on the top of the page, and then clicked on the guest button there? And after that, if you try the forum links they still go to an error page, you might need to press f5 or ctrl+f5 on the error page in order for it to refresh (but it's usually not needed with the default refresh settings of browsers, I think). It's true that some time ago the forum was down, but it's working fine now when I tried it... iddo999 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any 'log in as a guest' link at the top of the page. I tried it on another computer and another browser and I have the same problem. It just shows me what I pasted above, with no links. Alex 14:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * At the top of the article's page, not this discussion page. I put it there in 'bold text', above the table of contents. iddo999 14:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's working now. Sorry, I didn't notice that on top of the article. Thanks. Alex 14:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that there's also a "blog" at http://blog.zmag.org/bloggers/?blogger=chomsky, which features excerpts from the forum replies. Too bad that they often remove the questions asked for these excerpts, which makes it seem loose... I remember that I read an interview with Chomsky where he was asked what he thinks about his blog, and he said that he doesn't know what a blog is... iddo999 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

source requested
Quoting article: I would like to know the exact source for this quote, the ref'd page is a Hungarian page featuring 14 film fragments. Who can help? :Mick2 14:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's in part6, the biggest one, sorry:) But if I remember correctly, the rest of that part is also interesting, about who controls social movements in relation to the world social forum. There used to be a much smaller mp3 audio link with the whole thing, which would have been better as a source link, but it's not available anymore i think. iddo999 15:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Another source is the following clips on YouTube (actual quote is contained in part two of the video): (part one)  (part two). Sslop 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue
Guys, no offense here, but the number of quotes here is far too much. Other far more significant figures and issues get a lot less coverage. Face it, whether you like Chomsky or not, he's, at most, a marginal figure in US and world politics. 67.164.112.174
 * Therefore, 67.164.112.174, you should add more quotes in the pages of the other far more significant figures. iddo999 16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

67.164.112.174, what does number of quotes per page have anything to do with significance of the person? Even if we had concrete definitions of "significant" and "marginal", it'd still be nonsense - it amounts to arbitrarily censoring unpopular views.

KAL 007 Quote
Someone needs to shorten this or split it up into quotes, its over a page long and hardly counts as a quote. 68.181.219.21

 * It's actually a quite heavily abridged excerpt from a speech, but I agree that calling it a quote would be a big stretch. IMHO a "quote" here should include everything that's relevant to make the point, for the benefit of the reader. In this case I tried to retain as little as possible by keeping (what seemed to me to be) the relevant parts, and trimming everything else with ellipses. You can listen to the recording and see that it's much longer with everything included. Also note that besides this one, there're several other long excerpts on this page. You can also search wikiquote for earlier discussions about length, here's one from 2005. I disagree with you that it should be shortened, unless you can point out to parts that aren't significant enough for making the point there. And I think that splitting it would be confusing for the reader in this case, because then you wouldn't be sure in what way some parts relate to others. Another possible option is to transfer it to wikisource (perhaps after adding what's missing in the ellipses), but that's not my preferred option. iddo999 11:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative Quotes
Why are there so many negative quotes from other people about Chomsky? I've looked at other wikiquote pages, and in them I don't see pages of insults towards him. Should I be adding more insults on other wikiquote pages? 70.162.42.37 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I've been collecting these negative quotes. The idea is that when you put all these clowns together, it makes them look even more insane than when reading their comments individually (in their cult forums, including forums such as NYTimes), because they contradict each other. Liberals are the most amusing I'd say, e.g. this contradiction: "For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all." versus "To focus on intentions is to prolong a futile clash of inflamed self-righteousness". Some of the right-wing comments (e.g. Steven Plaut) are actionable, but Chomsky doesn't care for libel lawsuits on libertarian principles. So you probably won't be able to find this level of negative comments about people who aren't libertarians in this sense, but anyway please don't add insults on other pages because of what you see on this page. iddo999 05:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are thinking, but inserting quotes from software designers and wikipedians into the negative quotes just clutters up the page. There is absolutely no need for all these negative quotes. Why don't you just make a separate page for it if you're just going to make this serve as a compendium for negative quotes from every source possible? --75.38.82.65 09:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Moving the entire 'about' section into a separate page might be a good option, though there are bigger wikiquote pages than this one. My preference is to leave it as it is, for now (but if the page gets bigger, I think that this option would be the first thing to consider). BTW in case I wasn't clear, positive (and neutral/indefinite) quotes are welcome too, of course. iddo999 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens
What is he doing in the 'right-wing' section? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

 * He is a self-described neo-conservative, though InvisibleSun also added a quote in the left-wing section from the time he was a self-described socialist/Trotskyite. iddo999 07:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ß

He has refused to be called a neoconservative. He is an independent libertarian and a marxist, and he is a great admirer of Noam Chomsky.

Quotes about section
Is there any reason this section, particularly toward the end (i.e. the non-politically-defined segment, although many of the individuals have publicly asserted political attachments), is so overwhelming negative? Surely it would be just as easy to craft it to be overwhelmingly positive, and thus a balanced (or near balanced) account should not be difficult to attain in this instance? 24.229.203.46 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, just saw a relevant earlier response; I would suggest that, while I understand this wikipedian's intentions, it would be nice to include more neutral / positive quotes, as many I believe will take away an effect other than the one desired.24.229.203.46 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

where is this quote in full length?
google has a hit for the search

"http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky Well yeah, there are other alternatives. For example, the alternatives that are favored by the overwhelming majority of the population of the United States" :

http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&lr=&rls=DVXE%2CDVXE%3A2005-08%2CDVXE%3Ade&q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikiquote.org%2Fwiki%2FNoam_Chomsky+Well+yeah%2C+there+are+other+alternatives.+For+example%2C+the+alternatives+that+are+favored+by+the+overwhelming+majority+of+the+population+of+the+United+States&as_q=&btnG=In%C2%A0den%C2%A0Ergebnissen%C2%A0suchen :

"Noam Chomsky - Wikiquote- Well yeah, there are other alternatives. For example, the alternatives that are favored by the overwhelming majority of the population of the United States. ... en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky - 362k - [in cache] - [similar sites]"

, but the "in cache"-version does not show the text, which can be seen under the search-hit. Maybe the cache-version is regarding an older version of this site (if yes, which one?), or the full quote is more in the end of the site, because it seems to me, as if the cache-version does not search/mark the whole site, as the colouring of words stops at one point, even if below are more words, which were included in the search-question.

I have looked up the normal version of this site, but as it is so long, maybe the quote is still actually on it and I only can't find it, but others might know where it is. -
 * It's there, to be found in the section United States in the quote which begins "I think the basic question you ask is a good one." (If your computer has a word search function, you can find this quote, as I did, by putting in a key word like "alternatives.") - InvisibleSun 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see - thank you!

Quote from Bin-Laden
Does the Counterterrorism Blog qualify as a legitimate source?

 * I guess not:) Why don't you look for a better source that contains the full transcript? (iirc I originally saw it here). iddo999 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

10 April 2008 Iddo999 .. (expand1 -1)
hi, Iddo999, thanks for expanding the 'propaganda'-q. It seems (iinm) that you also deleted the 'biggest terror'-quote, without explanation. Why? --Wda 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It's quite boring as it is, because it doesn't have any context (iirc it might be possible to add a paragraph from The Political Economy of Human Rights book that contains this quote, and that would make more sense). Also, it's a pretty much a dupe of other quotes that are already on this page, e.g. "... led by the world champion". Also, you should place quotes in chronological order (1969 < 1992). Also, I think the 'United States' section would be better than the 'Wars' section for such a quote. iddo999 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Breaking out separate pages
The point of breaking out collections of quotes from specific works into separate pages is to avoid having a single huge page with a melange of everything. For example, look at William Shakespeare. We have a page on his miscellaneous quotes or quotes from minor works, and separate pages for each of his major plays. The quotes from the major plays are not duplicated on the main page. It should be the same for Understanding Power and The Chomsky Reader. By the way, is Understanding Power a book or a blog? Cheers! BD2412 T 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a book containing a collection of various talks with extensive footnotes. One problem with removing quotes is that the separate articles are divided by books, while this page is divided by topics. So if you're looking for a quote on a specific topic, how could you tell in which subpage to look? iddo999 05:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you could have a note in the topic saying "see also Understanding Power" (perhaps the pages on the individual books could use some section dividers, which would allow you to pipe the link directly to the relevant section). The same applies to selections which are included in Wikisource. BD2412 T 06:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the concrete case of Understanding Power, following your suggestion now (by adding a note in each of the relevant sections saying "see also ...") would look pretty terrible I'd say:( iddo999 06:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics are entirely a matter of opinion, but I'm sure if you experiment with the possibilities you can achieve something satisfactory. It would not be an issue if the page were organized chronologically, or if the page were not so long as to be problematic for people with slow computers. BD2412 T 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

splitting the pages up and removing understanding power quotes from this page may have a nice cosmetic effect, but i wonder if it makes sense. i'm tired, so bear with me: understanding power isn't a "major play" or even a chomsky work, it's basically a giant quotes page unto itself. like, if shakespeare went around answering questions, we wouldn't split it into "shakespeare" and "stuff shakespeare Q&A sessions that happened to be overheard and transcribed into a book." it's a convenient excuse. the real "sources" for everythign in understanding power are a bunch of audio tapes we can't get.

also, chomsky tends to repeat himself, so if we want to remove the Understanding quotes from here, i bet half of the remainder can also be found in Understanding power (since it's also a collection of quotes). and then we'll have more on the understanding power page than here, which is contrary to the point of a quotes page.

fully in favor of shrinking and/or moving the about chomsky section.

Communism - Bolshevism
Michael Parenti's comment about what appearently has said about communism is simply false. Chomsky is always careful to refer to Soviet communism as BOLSHEVISM; unlike the media and pretty much all intellectual culture, he won't condemn the communist ideology because of the actions of a regime that merely claimed to adhere to communism. Now, I'm not suggesting that this quote should be removed, after all it is Parenti's mistake, I just wanted to maek you aware.
 * The source link goes to zmag forum where Chomsky responded to that, but the newer zmag website doesn't seem to allow free access to these older forum links. I can email the forum replies linked as sources to anyone who's interested. ~ iddo999 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything Andrew Sullivan said is a complete lie. He has no proof that Chomsky ever supported the Soviet Union, no proof that he ever supported a tyrannous regime, or has ever told deliberate lies consistently or that he is anti-american or that he makes millions of dollars fanning hatred of America. In fact that statement is contradictory. Let's say he makes millions fanning anti-americanism. Why is he fanning anti-americanism abroad? Why is he making millions doing so? That must mean that Chomsky's views on foreign policy are correct. Which in turn, means his criticisms are legitimate. That makes him a patriotic american trying to stop crimes of the US government and in turn, making Americans safer from terror.

Cleanup
I have restored cleanup tag to this article because the following issues need to be addressed: Regarding items 2 and 3, it should be borne in mind that Wikiquote's purpose is not to analyze a body of work or to cover a thesis. ~ Ningauble 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Format – In the "Quotes about" section, citations should be bulleted beneath the quotes, not inline.
 * 2) Structure – I agree with this assessment that the organization of subsections is inappropriate. Chronological order with grouping by works is becoming standard practice.
 * 3) Quotation length – More than two dozen of the "quotes" exceed the 250 word length of quotes limit.

 * I don't have a strong opinion regarding bulleted citations for the 'about' section. It's just that it'd make the page longer (in terms of the number of lines), so if someone who cares about this issue would go ahead and add the bulleted citations, I might go over the 'about' section and delete a few of the more boring quotes that I put there.
 * There's a difference between standard practice and mandatory practice. Also, within each section the quotes are in chronological order (as you probably already noticed). I expressed my (positive) opinion regarding division to subjects here.
 * This has been discussed several times, see e.g. this VP discussion (which also links to previous discussions).
 * I moved the cleanup tag to the talk page. Hopefully that's ok with everyone? ~ iddo999 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote for deletion result
Per the strong consensus of the community as expressed in the deletion discussion, lengthy quotes on this page need to be removed to Wikisource or broken into smaller quotes. BD2412 T 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chronology work
As the layout of this page has long been neglected, I will probably attempt to begin putting these quotes into standard chronological arrangements and sections sometime within the next week or so. I will label it with an  tag when I do begin, but once started it still might well take me at least a day or two before I finish. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi Kalki, it took me about three hours (and another 1.5), but I guess this is not the real issue. That cleanup tag cannot last for ever. Something has to be done about it, and tonight I made a (new) start. I think a lot can be done to further improve this article, such as.
 * Extracts of the (sub) Wikiquote articles about Chomsky's mayor publication can be add in the chronological structure...
 * ... and also quotable text from other highly cited books/articles
 * Theme's can be stipulated by adding wiki-links to words in the text
 * The section about Chromsky should be cleaned up as well, but how?
 * All 233 external links should be checked if they are still working.
 * Most sources in the section about Chromsky are incomplete, and must be completed (because those external links eventually will become unstable).
 * If the proponents of the thematical structure want to keep it like it was, it seems like a good idea that they recreate the whole article in Wikibooks. Mdd (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC) / 02:46 / 10:25 / 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I applaud any efforts at cleaning this up into more standard formatting, and had actually done extensive work on the page on and off for several days around the time of that note, but eventually abandoned the effort without ever having posted much, and I might look over my previous files and see if I can salvage any portions of them — but it might take me time to do that, as they were done on another computer than the one I am using here. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kaki, I had already run into the cleanup tag on this article a couple of times, and your note here was a final motivation to get started. It seems there is still a lot to be done, see the listing in my above comment. -- Mdd (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work - looks very good. As to one of your above questions regarding the 'About' section, I would remove the subheadings and sort the quotes alphabetically by their author/speaker. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now also rearranged the section with quotes about Chromsky, and updated the list. -- Mdd (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. There is/was absolutely no reason to put this page in chronological order. Quotes divided by subject were much better. This new order makes it much more difficult to find what you are looking for. The dates actually don't make a difference, because Chomsky is so old, something quoted in 2005 could have been originally written in 1992, what difference does it make if he happens to repeat it again in 2005? And the quote itself could be about any time period.. I will change it back unless there is strong opposition. 70.50.188.170 23:59, 15 March 2013 (Talk)
 * Please don't change it back. Already in 2009 is explained that "the organization of subsections is inappropriate. Chronological order with grouping by works is becoming standard practice" (see ). This chronological order is now introduced. -- Mdd (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please don't change it back. One reason we avoid subject headings is because it tends to introduce subjective opinions about the intent or significance of the author's words. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, but now this page is disorganized & impossible to read, and for no benefit.

Incomplete source info - Cleanup tag
After the article was rearranged a year ago, the cleanup tag wasn't removed, because almost all quotes have incomplete source info. The source info is based on a weblink, which could become unstable in a year or so. In Wikiquote each article needs weblink independent source info, so if the weblink goes death only the link can be removed and not the whole quote (because it has become unsourced).

In order to add the required source info, almost every source should be checked, and source info updated or rewritten. As example I just made a start, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * On second though I removed 2009 clean-up template. If I am not mistaken, most of 2009 issues have been solved. The only thing required is modification of (almost all) the source info, which doesn't really count as cleanup, but much appreciated modification. I do think, that source info based on dead-links can be classified as partly sourced/unsourced, and moved to the unsourced section on the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced

 * Education is a system of imposed ignorance.
 * Noam Chomsky Manufacturing Consent

 * It just doesn't matter much what you think, what your subjective judgement is, about the possibilities of making progress. Whether you think they're great or whether you think they're dim, you can do the same thing, try. See how far you can go. Otherwise, you're saying okay I want the worst to happen.
 * Noam Chomsky - November 16th, 2012 - Message for activists and the future generations

 * Social and political issues in general seem to me fairly simple; the effort to obfuscate them in esoteric and generally vacuous theory is one of the contributions of the intelligentsia to enhancing their own power and the power of those they serve.
 * Language and Politics, p. 345

 * "There are plenty of things that are unknown, but are assumed reasonably to exist, even in the most basic sciences. Maybe 90 percent of the mass-energy in the universe is called “dark,” because nobody knows what it is."

 * "I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny.

 * On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.
 * The Reality Club: Beyond Belief

Quotes about Noam Chomsky requiring editorial work
Quotations do not specify source outside of link

 * Reading Failed States, I had an epiphany: that by applying a Chomskian analysis to his own writing, you discover exactly the same subtle textual biases, evasions and elisions of meaning as used by those he calls 'the doctrinal managers' of the 'powerful elites'. The mighty Chomsky, the world's greatest public intellectual, is prone to playing fast and loose. It is important to recognise this fact because the Chomskian analysis has become the defining dissident voice of the blogosphere and a certain kind of far-left academia.
 * Peter Beaumont, June 18, 2006.

 * Reading Chomsky is like standing in a wind tunnel. With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us--and to discern what they are leaving out. The answers become clear enough, he says. The catch is they won't be the ones we want to hear. [...] Chomsky, as he often does, has a voice problem. He is shrill and sarcastic--chiefly because he's angry with what he sees as rampant American hypocrisy. [...] If there is anything new about our age, it is that the questions Chomsky raises will eventually have to be answered. Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening.
 * BusinessWeek, April 17, 2000.

 * Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.' It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.
 * Hugo Chávez, September 20, 2006.

 * If the Palestinians accept the solution that professor Chomsky finds unacceptable, will he use his enormous resources as the most influential intellectual in the world today to turn the Palestinians against this peace proposal, or will he lend his great prestige to urging the Palestinians, and his academic supporters all over the world, to accept a pragmatic compromise solution. Professor Chomsky, a lot turns on you. You're a very important and influential person, and therefore you'd understand your power, and use it in the interests of peace.
 * Alan Dershowitz, November 29, 2005.

 * Chomsky's truly great contribution to the struggle for human freedom is that he has taken what we have been persuaded to believe is an insane idea, a product only of individual neurosis - the idea that society is not free and quite possibly not even sane - and shown it to be empirically, demonstrably true; he has provided the vital support for the individual to be able to declare him - and herself - sane against the insanity of society, despite a million voices declaring that it is the occasional doubter who is mad.
 * David Edwards, Burning All Illusions, 1996.

 * There's a humbling insight into the US pretension of occupying the moral high ground in Chomsky's work. Part of what he's saying is true. Objectively viewed, the United States isn't the victim but in many contexts, including its response to terrorism, the perpetrator. [But he's] so preoccupied with the evils of US imperialism that it completely occupies all the political and moral space, and therefore it's not possible for him to acknowledge that even without intending to do so, some US military interventions may actually have a beneficial effect.
 * Richard Falk, September 5, 2002

 * Noam Chomsky, the Dr. No of the hate-America crowd, is accused (by his own fans, of all people) of playing a little too fast and a little too loose with the facts in his latest screed, "Failed States." Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor for the London Guardian, writes that he wants to agree with Dr. No but can't find many reasons to in this latest book.
 * Suzanne Fields, June 22, 2006.

 * Regarding his personal character traits the most outstanding is that he is absolutely faithful, which is something very few people possess... Professor Chomsky will never betray you, never, it is impossible.
 * Norman Finkelstein, November 24, 2003

 * Noam Chomsky, one of America's greatest philosophers and linguists...
 * Robert Fisk, January 24, 2002.

 * ...the problem lies in Chomsky's description of Serb atrocities as "quite real" and "often ghastly". "Quite real ' is a cop-out for very real. Atrocities "sharply escalated" after Nato's bombardment, he says, but does not explain what these were: mass executions, rape, torture. The index refers to "atrocities" in Africa, Columbia, East Timor and Turkey without the appearance of "Serbia".
 * Robert Fisk, December 15, 1999.

 * It's hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light.
 * Jonathan Freedland, June 25, 2006

 * Sneering critics like Noam Chomsky, who condemn the executioners of thousands only in passing, would not hesitate to honour the vengeful feelings of Palestinians subjected to Israeli occupation. They have no standing.
 * Todd Gitlin, September 23, 2001.

 * [Noam Chomsky has] become the guru of the new anti-capitalist and Third World movements. They take his views very uncritically; it's part of the Seattle mood - whatever America does is wrong. He confronts orthodoxy but he's becoming a big simplifier. What he can't see is Third World and other regimes that are oppressive and not controlled by America.
 * Fred Halliday, January 2001.

 * For all the propaganda of al Jazeera, the wounded pride of the Arab Street, or the vitriol of the Western Left, years from now the truth will remain that our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize, but were willing to die for others’ freedom when few others would. Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky can change that, because it is not opinion, but truth...
 * Victor Davis Hanson, June 30, 2006

 * I tell you who opened up my eyes up a whole bunch, is a guy named Noam Chomsky...pours information into your head; it is interesting, fascinating and documented. He is the eighth most quoted man in history - we're talking Socrates, Shakespeare, and this guy packs a wallop.
 * Bill Hicks, January 1994, Campus Activities Today

 * The Americans' very conviction that their goals are good blinds them to the consequences of their acts. To focus on intentions is to prolong a futile clash of inflamed self-righteousness; to focus on behavior and results could get us somewhere. I detect in Professor Chomsky's approach, in his uncomplicated attribution of evil objectives to his foes, in his fondness for abstract principles, in his moral impatience, the mirror image of the very features that both he and I dislike in American foreign policy. To me sanity does not consist of replying to a crusade with an anti-crusade. As scholars and as citizens, we must require and provide discriminating and disciplined reasoning on behalf of our values.
 * Stanley Hoffmann, March 1969

 * [Bush Administration neoconservatives are] the ones who broke nearly every precedent of foreign policy in the post-Cold-War world. They're the ones who chose preventative war over international law. That's what I view as destructive, not Noam Chomsky pointing it out.
 * Chalmers Johnson, February 2005.

 * Chomsky's hatred of the United States is pathological -- stemming from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore.
 * Camille Paglia, October 27, 2006.

 * Noam Chomsky, who is an inexhaustible fount of anticommunist caricatures, offers this comment about Leninism: "Western and also Third World intellectuals were attracted to the Bolshevik counterrevolution because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine that says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals." Here Chomsky fashions an image of power-hungry Leninists, villains seeking not the revolutionary means to fight injustice but power for power's sake. When it comes to Red-bashing, some of the best and brightest on the Left sound not much better than the worst on the Right. [...] According to Noam Chomsky, communism "was a monstrosity," and "the collapse of tyranny" in Eastern Europe and Russia is "an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity." I treasure freedom and human dignity yet find no occasion for rejoicing. The postcommunist societies do not represent a net gain for such values. If anything, the breakup of the communist states has brought a colossal victory for global capitalism and imperialism, with its correlative increase in human misery, and a historic setback for revolutionary liberation struggles everywhere.
 * Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, 1997

 * The most striking fact is how consistently people with anything at all to say about language feel the need to strike some attitude for or against Chomsky's ideas. It's a big problem.
 * David Pesetsky, November 1995.

 * He embraces no ideology, and supports no revolution. His critics charge he is wedded to a simplistic view of the world, based on imaginary conspiracies, and yet, as the essayist Brian Morton wrote recently, 'many Americans are no longer convinced that our Government has the right to destroy any country it wants to, and Chomsky deserves much of the credit.'
 * John Pilger, November 25, 1992,.

 * Chomsky revived ideas that really had been kind of dormant since the Enlightenment of what is a human like and how does that tie in to our political arrangements, and the way we conceptualize humans in the broadest sense.
 * Steven Pinker, September 25, 2003

 * I want Noam Chomsky to be taught at universities about as much as I want Hitler's writing or Stalin's writing. These are wild and extremist ideas that I believe have no place in a university.
 * Daniel Pipes, September 2002.

 * Interestingly, not every person in the democratic West is overjoyed at seeing Syrian fascism at last challenged. Noam Chomsky, the MIT inventor of now-discredited theories of linguistics, is determined to defend and perpetuate Syrian colonization of Lebanon, no matter how many Lebanese lives it costs. His reason? He insists Syrian occupation of Lebanon is necessary as a way to prevent those evil Israelis from doing horrid deeds in Lebanon, like attempting to protect their citizens from terrorist attacks launched out of Lebanon.
 * Steven Plaut, March 7, 2005

 * ...the self-indulgent and auto-congratulatory Noam Chomsky, arguably one of the most virulent anti-Semitic Jews you can hope to encounter. His endless diatribes on what he wants you to believe to be the horrible treatment of the Palestinian people at the hands of the cold-hearted Israeli oppressors are unparalleled in literary hyperbole. Unfortunately, he doesn’t offer one shred of evidence to back this up. He invites you to join him, the consummate Jewish intellect, in collective snobbery by simply accepting (because you are so frightfully well-educated as he is) that what he says is so. I have yet to see one single person stand up and ask, “Dr. Chomsky, what is the evidence for this?” Should this take place, hopefully there will be a paramedic team standing by to resuscitate him.
 * Moss David Posner, July 3, 2006

 * Chomsky is an irresistible example of the quality problem that besets the market for academic public intellectuals.
 * Richard Posner, 2001.

 * For Chomsky, the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. America, the prime oppressor, can do no right, while the sins of those categorized as oppressed receive scant mention. Because he deems American foreign policy inherently violent and expansionist, he is unconcerned with the motives behind particular policies, or the ethics of particular individuals in government. And since he considers the United States the leading terrorist state, little distinguishes American air strikes in Serbia undertaken at night with high-precision weaponry from World Trade Center attacks timed to maximize the number of office workers who have just sat down with their morning coffee.
 * Samantha Power, January 4, 2003

 * Just imagine, he says, the policies that such an Iraq would be likely to pursue: "The Shiite population in the south, where most of Iraq's oil is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly relations with Shiite Iran." He wrote those words in January 2006. A year and a half later, the United States tolerates a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq whose Shiite government is friendly toward Iran. If Bush is pursuing imperialism in Baghdad, it is of a very curious sort.
 * Jonathan Rauch, September 2, 2007.

 * Yet [Chomsky's The Responsibility of Intellectuals essay] defined the peace movement as much as any document and pushed the name Chomsky up there with Thoreau and Emerson in the literature of rebellion.
 * Rolling Stone, May 28, 1992.

 * [Hegemony or Survival describes] a world in which, chronology be damned, 9/11 seems like an understandable response, if not justifiable one, to our attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
 * Carlin Romano, September 23, 2006.

 * Even a quarter of the evidence he had compiled would have been enough to convince me. I used to wonder why he needed to do so much work. But now I understand that the magnitude and intensity of Chomsky's work is a barometer of the magnitude, scope, and relentlessness of the propaganda machine that he's up against. He's like the wood-borer who lives inside the third rack of my bookshelf. Day and night, I hear his jaws crunching through the wood, grinding it to a fine dust. It's as though he disagrees with the literature and wants to destroy the very structure on which it rests.
 * Arundhati Roy, August 24, 2003.

 * Noam Chomsky thinks he's the Moses of this age and even those on the Left who don't agree with him on everything accept his moral authority. But Chomsky is a socialist who practices capitalism, and an anti-militarist who has made millions off of Pentagon contracts.
 * Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, October 25, 2005

 * [Noam Chomsky] seems to feel licensed to forget or distort the truth whenever it suits his polemical convenience. He begins as a preacher to the world and ends as an intellectual crook.
 * Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., December 1969.

 * Chomsky says America is a warring country seeking to build an empire, not a liberator trying to achieve peace, freedom, and democracy.
 * Debbie Schlussel, February 21, 2006.

 * Chomsky pointed out after 9/11 that the US has also committed atrocities, some quite recently. His critics reply that this was in poor taste. Whether there is a grain (or a bushel) of truth in these criticisms, you’ll have to decide for yourself. I’m too much of a partisan to pronounce. But even if you decide to toss out 25 percent or 50 percent or 75 percent of Chomsky’s charges against American foreign policy, that still leaves quite a tidy pile of unnecessary suffering that the United States is responsible for. And it’s your country.
 * George Scialabba, September 27, 2006.

 * It is tempting to follow a policy of malign neglect toward Chomsky's latest screed. But ignoring the book may foster the false impression that Chomsky's revelations are somehow too explosive to be challenged in a major newspaper. A far wiser course is to point out the inconsistent arguments and shrill assertions that are Chomsky's contribution to the public debate. [...] It would be unfortunate if Chomsky's momentary popularity overshadows infinitely more reasoned critiques of Bush administration policies. There are serious questions that should be weighed as America girds for final war against Saddam Hussein and dispatches military advisers to nations like the Philippines. Chomsky and his camp followers do not have a monopoly on dissent. The best response to the frenzied e-mailed dispatches from this left-wing crank remains public disclosure and ridicule.
 * Walter Shapiro, May 7, 2002.

 * I think that I offended many people when I decimated the postures and the lies of Noam Chomsky in an article I wrote called "Poisoning the Well in Academe." That wasn't a conservative screed on my part. That was a liberal's devotion to the truth, and the exposure of a liar, a person who assaults the mind by putting in false evidence.
 * John Silber, November 2005

 * I'm not a pacifist. And I am not one of those people, like Noam Chomsky, with whom I have agreed on some points, I don't agree on this point, who believes that all uses of American imperial power are by definition wrong. I suppose in fact I might be called, in a certain stretch, a liberal imperialist. I believe there are times when great powers can intervene to prevent atrocities, and should.
 * Susan Sontag, March 2, 2003

 * One of our great voices for some time now for peace in the world is Noam Chomsky. I've never seen his name in the 'New York Times' in any context other than linguistics of which he's a professor at MIT.
 * Gore Vidal, March 14, 2003.

 * When Noam Chomsky was merely the most original, arresting, and widely talked-about linguistic theorist in America, he was never referred to as a leading American intellectual. That came only after he expressed his outrage over American involvement in the war in Vietnam, about which he knew nothing, since he read The Nation instead of Parade. It was the outrage that gained him entry into that “charming aristocracy,” to borrow the words of Catulle Mendès. Or as Marshall McLuhan once put it, “Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity.”
 * Tom Wolfe, December 19, 2005

 * He seems both wholly cynical about the purposes of those in power, and wholly unforgiving. Those who direct American policy - and, by implication, those who direct the policy of any state - are allowed no regrets, no morals, no feelings, and when they change their policies they appear to do so for entirely Machiavellian reasons. Chomsky has little interest in the question of 'good in bad' - of how there can be good behaviour in the context of bad policies - and seems to deny the complexity of human affairs...
 * Martin Woollacott, January 14, 1989

 * His focus, almost exclusively, has been on U.S. foreign policy, a narrowness that would exert a conservative influence even for a radical thinker. If urging increased involvement in politics goes against the potentially subversive tide toward less and less involvement, Chomsky's emphasis on statecraft itself gravitates toward acceptance of states. And completely ignoring key areas (such as nature and women, to mention only two), makes him less relevant still.
 * John Zerzan, 1996.

Optimism Quote
I couldn't find the source of this quote:

"Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.

If you assume there is no hope, you guarantee there will be no hope. If you assume there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there's a chance you may contribute to making a better world.

The choice is yours."

I emailed him, and he said it "Sounds like me".

Not sure the best way to add it...

Hope, freedom and change quote
"If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world".

I was going to add this quote but I'm not sure of when Chomsky first said it or when it is first quoted to him.

On AZ Quotes it is attributed to ''Noam Chomsky, Heinz Dieterich (1999). “Latin America: from colonization to globalization”, Ocean Pr''.

However, on the website chomsky.info (which is used on this page to quote other Chomsky quotes), in an interview with Fred Branfman, he says he saw the quote in the January 1997 issue of Wired, seen here https://chomsky.info/199702__/. However, I cannot find any online evidence to verify this claim, nor am I sure if this is the first publication of this quote.

Can someone please add this quote and a citation with where the quote first originated please? Many thanks in advance, Helper201 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Noam Chomsky


text:
User:Kendranarchy

Word!

title: User:Kendranarchy