Re: teed off

god damn server dropped my last message

Omlar says
>No, I'm really not. This, after all, is what we do for fun. But thanks
>for
>caring.

Oh, so THAT'S what you guys do for fun? Try bird watching or something else
with a little more oomph.

What I am saying is that like most philosophers, Derrida creates his own
vocabulary but when someone does the same to him he get's his panties in a
bunch. He starts off with a philosophical position but sets it out in an
extravagant and hyperbolic way. It protects him.
At best he's a poor man's Kant.
Typical from an elitist French Fart, the English speaking crowd is blamed
for misrepresentation. As if translating his ideas are so easy.
Still this does not make Derrida anything but a frivolous, forgettable
figure with a penchant for half-baked irrationalism. Do you thinnk your
students give a frog's fat ass what Derrida thinks of literature? Or will
remember it ten years from now?
Let them read The Brothers' Karamazov.
Leave the subversion and madness to the sickos.

Now, Omlor, there are no doubts you are more familiar with Derrida than I.
Certainly we can come to some kind of arrangement where knowledge of this
fat assed Frech phony is transmitted to me so I can understand him.
But I take issue with the stance that I have to be knowledgeable of him
before I can criticize him. I read his Greatest Hit's years ago, and that's
all I need right now. That's BS, because most of his disciples never
understood his theories the way he wanted them to anyway. The bulk of those
egoistic pinheads who shared that transatltantic clubhouse at Yale should
have been flown to the Moon. Surely they felt they were closer to Him
anyway.

As far as decuntrusting Salinger, I'd like you to find any "
accidental"
features in HIS texts. Surely you are a well-read man, it goes without
saying you've read all of The Old Hermit's 13 published works.
Do it to it. Put up or shut up.
After all it was Derrida who nourished you so you could grow hair on your
chest and helped you get that position in academe which made my envy so
palpable. I don't find ANY elements betraying an essential message, whatever
the Hell THAT means. Now I am reverting to the God-forsaken lingo used and
abused by the elite Fellows.
Likely because I am an original fraud. But exactly.

Omlor, your perspective is appreciated. Let me say that right now, Bubba
However, the philosophocal side of deconstructionism (I love saying that
word, mostly becuase it pisses them off) is somethign I have little grasp
of. Boy, was Keats on the money when he said "Philosophers will clip the
wings of Angels". And he never lived to see that bloated fake Martin H. run
with the devils down towards his Master's bloodbath. Good thing, too.
Bloated man, florid prose.
The literary side of deconstructionism is understood by yours truly even
less. Bear with me, I'm a slow one. What is apparent? They make rigorous use
of the hatchets and scalpels, among other tools, of the literary critics of
the 20th century. Now, bellyflopping into that puddle you left me in;

What in the hell is the matter with a reading of a poem as a closed
thing-in-itself? Thats not good enough, huh Omlor?

Do you have any idea how a "chain of references" can be the moral equivalent
of pissing on a dead author?

Evidence?

It has come to my attention John has not been flexing his creative muscles
ever since he hurtled Grammatology. Atrophy sets in. Thus, he's got no idea
what goes on outside his Kollagen circle.

Cordially,

John Gedudski
Adjunct Professor of Sciolism
Philisita Community College
501 Boorish Drive
NY,NY

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Mar 3 15:55:05 2003