I was referring to the fact

I was referring to the fact that he re-interprets contrary evidence (such as that produced by Everett — but there are many others) to fit an a priori scheme he constructed back in the 1950s (in abeyance of any evidence, other than a few thought experiments and naive beliefs about how children learn to speak, and how adults learn a second language).
If you read Chris Knight’s other essays on Chomsky, you will I think, see the point.
Chomsky is also oblivious, and/or dismissive, of Marx and Engels’s belief that language is a historical/social, not an individual, phenomenon, invented by humans in order to communicate. He rejects the idea that language is communicational in anything other than a very basic sense.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/edition.php?issue_id=803
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=400
http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/category/noam_chomsky/