Had an interesting dialogue with Noam Chomsky. He was nice enough to take the time to have a dialogue with me but frankly he either didn't understand the points I made about free will or what's more likely he didn't want to exert the effort to have a dialogue as equals. I appreciate what he does for social activism, but in general I think he has a type of snobbishness that comes out in some of his interviews. For an Anarchist (and someone who claimed in my message to be a 'Humean Skeptic' though from what I've listened of him he discredits Skepticism as well as Hard Determinism as patently absurd) he doesn't seem to tolerate disagreement very-well.
Maybe I'm mistaken. And again, really cool that he e-mailed me. Anyone who wants to start a dialogue with him just look at his MIT page. When I was younger I looked up to Chomsky so I would be disappointed except honestly not only did I notice the snobbishness years ago but he makes claims about Aristotle that during my Independent Study this last semester I found out were quite inaccurate, so what I saw really wasn't anything novel. I could go more into it but my point is that he seems to be sloppy when it comes to some points and doesn't care about intellectual rigor.
If I can I might read some Diderot soon. He sounds like an interesting guy.