point of clarification: Noam Chomsky has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to enter almost any environment which is interested in dialog.  Sure, he often lectures at places which attract his 'fans', but his lecturing activity is just the tip of iceburg.  You can go to Znet and see that he is holding daily conversations with people who hold vastly different views then he does, and you can locate many debates (on audiotape and some video) in which Chomsky was willing to enter into contexts in which all the presuppositions were stacked against him.  Much of the times, they end up calling Chomsky not-so-nice names, but I'm happy to report, that I've never witnessed him treat them the same way.  Also, Moore has been willing to strike up dialogs with people who disagree with his basic premises.  I don't have the specific instances to show you, but I know I can dig them up.  The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't reallly matter if Chomsky is willing to enter into those sorts of context because there is no conversation once he is there.  He tries to point out, with as much empirical evidence as he can, that there is a great discrepency between what our leaders say they are doing and what they are actually doing.  Of course, most of what he has to say runs against the core taboos of the mainstream assumptions and there is no listening in return.  It's funny, I was always told that Chomsky was a radical.  Now that I've been reading and watching him for about a year, I don't see him that way at all- I never did. He is not very radical at all, however, in order to remedy many of the discrepancies he points out, some people assume only radical means must be taken.  When you read Chomskies top 10 things that citizens should be doing, none of them are radical in the least.  Anyway... Doug