You can visit the Chomsky-Bot by simply clicking on the following link:

Alas, this site has vanshed from the Web, but you'll find quite similar output below...

As soon as you arrive, it will have already generated a screenful of Chomskian prose for you. You can ask it for another screenful by clicking on a link at the bottom of the screen, where another link will also take you to an explanation of the history behind the Chomsky-Bot, which was invented collectively over a period of time by John Lawler, Anthony Aristar, and John Sowa..

Or if you prefer, you can read some typical Chomsky-Bot output in the very next three paragraphs:

Presumably, an important property of these three types of EC raises serious doubts about a parasitic gap construction. For one thing, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is necessary to impose an interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Note that any associated supporting element cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Furthermore, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is unspecified with respect to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that relational information is not to be considered in determining the strong generative capacity of the theory.

Let us continue to suppose that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features raises serious doubts about a parasitic gap construction. It must be emphasized, once again, that the systematic use of complex symbols cannot be arbitrary in an abstract underlying order. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits a descriptive fact.

Clearly, relational information is necessary to impose an interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is rather different from nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.

On the other hand, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort does not affect the structure of an abstract underlying order. To characterize a linguistic level L, the earlier discussion of deviance suffices to account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Suppose, for instance, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds delimits the traditional practice of grammarians. Thus the systematic use of complex symbols cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the notion of level of grammaticalness is unspecified with respect to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).

However, this assumption is not correct, since an important property of these three types of EC raises serious doubts about the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It may be, then, that relational information is not to be considered in determining a parasitic gap construction. Suppose, for instance, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial delimits the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). For one thing, the systematic use of complex symbols does not affect the structure of the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.