[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

This is Derrida at Oxford all over again: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU DON'T GET IT. Your not getting it is not indicative of there being nothing to get. I'm not getting at you particularly, I'm getting at the position you're representing. It's the same with Dawkins - YES, religion has produced a lot of cack, but Dawkins by no means represents anything substantially less boorish. You don't edify the totality of one position in negating another - that's bullshit (again, this isn't at you, this is directed blindly to the aether).

i don't condemn things that i don't get per se, but there is PLENTY of miserablly wrong crap and utter intellectual farces where the fraud was obscured by lingo-- and i have read enough of it to know. paper after paper, article after article, photocopies galore

unfortunately the system of a big chunk of the humanities as it stands today is guilty of promoting such frauds.

yes, reading derrida is difficult, reading finnegan's wake is difficult, but it doesn't mean there is nothing to it. however, spewing idiotic gibberish and calling it joycean prose and having critics applaud is a good con job.