Subject: Re: Matrix crap? :)
From: Jim Rovira (jrovira@drew.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 21:59:09 GMT
Calling something "crap" is pretty straightforward, no matter how much
you tried to tone it down once I called you on it. It's not a statement
about preference, it's a statement about content -- content you haven't
really addressed at all. But I think you need to own up to your own
words even more than this. More below...
ZazieZazie@hetnet.nl wrote:
>
> YOU, on the other hand, do not only have problem with understanding,
> also the reading dept. on your side doesn't seem too well developed.
> How ever you managed to conclude from my post that I said that I
> rejected their ideas because of their (or yours, let's put blame where > blame is due) style is beyond me.
You seem not to remember your own words. Here they are:
>The style, however ... brrrr! It's this sort of style one is confronted > with all day long when one studies Media Studies, not only in
> writing but also in speech,
Simple grammar. The subject of the sentence is "style." It's what
you're talking about.
> when the lecturer is trying to impress his audience.
Interesting judgment on everyone who uses that type of language. Derrida
, at least, seems to me to be writing as he does because he's aware that
his own writing participates in the problems he's trying to address.
Yes, some are using language just as they do simply to impress an
audience. You didn't seem to leave much room for any other motive,
however. Makes me wonder how much of it you really understand...and as
much as you say you do, you still haven't addressed content.
> I suppose, my slightly less than amused attitude towards this,
I can only assume, since you are speaking within the context of this
discussion, that your "slightly less than amused attitude" means that
you think it's "crap." "This" in this sentence meaning, of course,
style; a style adopted, you think, simply to impress people.
> is not wholly incomprehensible.
Therefore Style = your "not wholly incomprehensible" reason for calling
it "crap" (I suppose we should say "Style + the motives you project upon
others for writing in that style = crap," to be more accurate). Now,
back to your latest post:
> How ever you managed to conclude from my post that I said that I
> rejected their ideas because of their (or yours, let's put blame where > blame is due) style is beyond me.
It shouldn't be beyond you -- it's almost what you said. I didn't say
you rejected their ideas, though. I said you called my piece "crap"
because I **talked about** their ideas (and therefore, I imagine, made
reference to that horrible language).
Either way, I can only suppose that you don't even understand your own
words either...
I guess I should forgive you for misunderstanding those of others --
even mine in that last post.
Now are you going to ever address content?
I don't think so.
See, what you still don't get is that I'm not writing in that style
right now, or in any other post on any listserve or, for that matter,
even in the Matrix essay. Blame where blame is due should not,
therefore, be blame on me. I think you'd better look in a mirror.
If you don't understand something as straightforward as this post (or my
last one), of course you're going to think something slightly more
abstract is all part of a great wash of abstractions you still haven't
demonstrated that you "get."
Or are even trying to.
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Nov 12 2001 - 17:22:38 GMT