quite a life

Gedsudki hovers near the Event Horizon, and then

Omlor says

>John G. writes, about some of his fellow list-members:
>
>"Seems they are lost in the world of interpretive decuntstructionism."
>
>Does this sentence actually mean anything at all, or is it just a silly
>excuse for a childish play on spelling?

Both apply. It was bait to see if, and when, I could gain one iota of
insight into the usefulness of deconstructionism from someone who has
invested so much time in it. Foiled again.

He then says:
>
>Is there any evidence that this is true concerning any specific readings
>ever
>offered here of Salinger's work?

No, thankfully. Most list-members seem to have have better judgement.

Omlor asks:
>Have any of them ever even remotely
>resembled anything that could properly be called "deconstruction?"

I don't know. You are asking the wrong person, seeing how my post
(both of them) expressed, at best an elementary grasp of "deconstruction."

He holds forth:
>
>Is there any evidence that John's assertion is true concerning contemporary
>scholarship or literary studies as practiced by most of those on this list
>or
>those elsewhere in academia?

Is that what overelaborating is?

Omlor then takes the stand:
>
>Has there ever been any evidence that John G. would even be able to
>recognize
>such a specific act of reading if it was offered here?

Whom is this question directed to?

He continues, red hot:
>
>Incidentally, it has longed seemed to me that one reason no one should take
>anything John G. says about academia seriously is that he obviously has no
>idea what goes on there these days.

Well put. Why stop there? I'll bet you've got at least five more Omlor.

And finally, Omlor says:
>
>Scottie,
  You might think that your
>unflinching grumpiness is honest, profound, and perhaps even oddly
>endearing.
> Others might just see it as simplistic, predictable, and easy. Such is
>reading.

Now, John, is that outside the text or inside? Let's be neat now.

>
>as has been noted, I have had little to say.
>

It's discouraging to recognize that fact. Your posts are a hoot, structured,
calculated, and never a residue of mish-mash.
Very Zenless, I must say.

>That, and at the moment, Tiger is playing.

You don't have a pet cat, do you Omlor?

(Can I stop whispering now?)

Cordially,

John Gedsudski
Adjunct Professor of Sciolism
Philistia 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 19:57:25 2003