Lyotard "Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism?"

I'm going to write about a very small part of Lyotard's "Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism?". In the beginning, titled 'A Demand', Lyotard is talking about what he is seeing happening - things postmodernism is said to be doing by those Lyotard has been reading, like 'under the name of postmodernism, architects are getting rid of the Bauhaus project, throwing out the baby of experimentation with the bathwater of functionalism.' (71), and that 'some are displeased with Mille Plateaux [by Delueze and Guattari] because they expect, especially when reading a work of philosophy, to be gratified with a little sense.' (71, emphasis added). He has also read 'a young philosopher of language who complains that Continental thinking, under the challenge of speaking machines, has surrendered to the machines the concern for reality, that it has substituted for the referential paradigm that of "adlinguisticity" (one speaks about speech, writes about writing, intertextuality), and who thinks that the time has now come to restore a solid anchorage of language in the referent.' (71-72, emphasis added).

So, I'd like to write about my italicized parts above in relation to some of the criticism directed at Derrida. Both seem like the criticism of his writing from Michael Foucault and Noam Chomsky. I think a great and key word for me to take from this criticism would be obscurantism - the accusation being that Derrida deliberately obscures the argument to prevent criticism of it, with the suspicion that the argument isn't any good (the following from an online bulletin board post by Chomsky)*:

'...what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish.'

I guess another key to what I find interesting about this criticism is Chomsky's background/academic work in linguistics but popular writing in politics - what does it mean for someone in that position to be saying this. It seems like a concern in the middle of these? (Chomsky's worry about obscurantism, in context of his political writing, seems quite political to me.) What does having a background in linguistics change about the way we would read things like Derrida - Chomsky is one of those expecting to be gratified with a little sense? are the aims just different (would that mean Chomsky is misunderstanding or not agreeing with the importance of the aim of deconstruction theory?)?


* All discussion on it I've found seems to come back to this, which is maybe not the most trust worthy of sources! But since there are trust worthy sources that reference this, I'd hope it's accurate. But maybe it is an odd '90s Internet rumour!
EDIT: I have figured this out, and the answer is quite boring. Chomsky originally posted on the bulletin board of Z-Magazine, which it turns out was this left wing political magazine and website he often contributed to.

--
Works cited:
Lyotard, Jean-François. "Answering The Question: What Is Postmodernism?", trans. Durand, Regis. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1984. pp.71-82.

Chomsky, Noam. "Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism". Centre for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan. 23 September 2009. http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html