At 03:15 ìì 19/9/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 9/19/97 11:25:08 AM, you wrote:
>
><<Chomsky is an agonistis.>>
>
>Ok, I had to look it up, but it would seem he is an agonist( one who is
>engaged in struggle) and not an agonistis. Unless of course you meant to
>write, " He is agonistis. " And how do you pronounce that anyway:-)
>
>John
>
>

You pronounce it "agonistes" with the primary stress on the last syllable 
(see etymology of "agonist" in Merriam Webster's 10th). You use it as you 
do in the expression: "He is a fighter". You could not find it in a dictionary,
as an entry, but possibly you met the word in the title of a book by no other
than Nixon's Spyro Agnew. I consciously used the word, although I was afraid 
that there was going to be a reaction similar to yours, because in the Greek
Resiatance against the Nazis the word "agonistis" was a title of honor and Noam 
Chomsky is fighting for the denazification of the United States. (See,
American Power
and the New Mandarins, page 16; "We have to ask ourselves whether what is needed
in the United States is dissent- or denazification".)

Anyway, it was my mistake to be carried away by sentiment and use the word, thus
diverting the discussion to trivialities.

The important question to ask is why for Susan and for millions of Americans
like Susan, Chomsky's work is almost nonexistent?

Nikos