RE: brouhaha-hahaha

It wasn't a lethal weapon it was a commercial airline and it meaned exactly
that, that is why it is terrorism. It only means lethal weapon when you
simplify it. You take ownership and act like it is still out there on its
own. You don't like the alleged 'obvious plot elements' because why? They
don't have enough meaning? Or enough of your meaning or any other readers
for your or their purpose? That's it Jim, it isn't good enough to see a
flower, you have to dig it up. You have to plant it in your garden and
contrive an explanation to justify it all, like; 'Hey we gave it an enclosre
based on it's natural habitat'. Again, we all pour our meanings into a
'text' but some of us admit it but those 'obvious plot elements' are never
as good as the what the critic has to say. I read your post and well, all I
am responding to are its obvious plot elements. I'll piss off Carter and
end with a quote, " you tithe in anise and cummin but neglect the weightier
matters of the law." I suspect that you will say I am misquoting but all it
would prove is that you misunderstand.
Daniel

That's the point, though: I didn't "misconstrue" you. You brought up
the
hijacker analogy and saw for yourself, as you were writing it, that it
led in
directions you didn't like. I didn't need to acknowledge that, once
again, you
were saying authorial intent is the ground of textual meaning because I
already
knew that. There was no point of substance in your post beyond that
reassertion.

Ultimately, though, I didn't "interpret" your post, I merely asked a
question --
and since I was asking a question, there's no question about me
"misconstruing"
your point. Let me repeat the question once again and see if you can
"construe"
my post well enough to respond directly:

If a hijacker defines an airplane as lethal weapon, the crashes that
plane into
a building, does the hijacker's definition win?

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> I think you got my intent but you hijacked the words for your purpose
> missing what I was trying to communicate. My message to you died in
your
> reply. See, you end up only talking to yourself again. Sure you can
> mis-construe my intent of meaning and make it yours. Who owns it?
Meaning
> doesn't just happen, it took you to stretch my meaning so that it
could
> exceed the self existen (?) intent. Jim, that is not meaning that is
> incoherence in comminication. It remains babel if it didn't get
through.
> Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Rovira [mailto:jrovira@drew.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:01 PM
> To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> Subject: Re: brouhaha-hahaha
>
> Daniel, I didn't "hijack" your post, I repeated it. It's not my fault
> your words exceeded your intent :). They always do, you know. That's
> the point.
>
> Jim
>
> Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>
> >You missed the point. You hijacked my post, what can I say? I hope
no one
> >died.
> >Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >You answered your own question, Daniel, there at the end.
> >
> >To a hijacker, a plane "means" lethal weapon.
> >
> >To a traveler, a plane "means" a way to travel from one place to the
next.
> >
> >If a hijacker takes over a plane and crashes it into a building, his
> >definition wins, no?
> >
> >Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 22 02:06:30 2003