We all like our villains or heroes to be villainous or heroic through and through. Life often isn't so.

Great scientists can be social assholes, fine singers can be lousy thinkers, ruthless dictators can be really caring regarding their pets.

If all of the above (Dickey's post) was true about Chomsky, would that make any of his analyses worse? If he was poorer would that make any of his analyses better?

Parts of this discussion remind me of the too many Ewan MacColl threads (like if he has changed his name, was a deserter etc.):

Many debaters liked mentioning details they thought were negative about his life. Would (or should) that make him less influential in the folk world? Some of the rest defended each bit about MacColl as if it was unconceivable to adore the songwriter and collector but to consider him politically naive.

The I tell you something bad about a person you seem to admire approach makes one error, an overly defensive attitude makes the other.

Wolfgang