|
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
.... died on Friday, Oct 8.
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:58:38 -0400, GregP
wrote: ... died on Friday, Oct 8. Are you sure? I mean, really, really sure? Can you explain why you may or may not be sure, and if you deem to try to explain, why should we accept your explanation? After all, just because you read his obituary to say that he was dead, that doesn't mean that he is actually dead. Perhaps it is that you read it in such a way as to that he is, in fact, dead. And just what do you think you mean by "died on Friday, Oct. 8?" Are you certain that it was Friday, October 8, or even this year - perhaps he died last year, or will die on Oct 8, but of another year. Frankly, I'm not sure that what you thought you read was what the writer said, and even if what you thought you read was what the writer said, who is to say that the writer said what he actually intended to say, or more importantly, that what the writer actually said was what he thought he was saying and intended to say. Frankly, IF Jacques is _apparently_ dead, who is to say that he is actually dead, or that those who write about the supposed death are actually intending to say that they, do, in fact, think that he is, in fact, dead.... If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... ....G (if, of course, you see it that way...) R (or maybe not...) |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:58:38 -0400, GregP
wrote: ... died on Friday, Oct 8. Are you sure? I mean, really, really sure? Can you explain why you may or may not be sure, and if you deem to try to explain, why should we accept your explanation? After all, just because you read his obituary to say that he was dead, that doesn't mean that he is actually dead. Perhaps it is that you read it in such a way as to that he is, in fact, dead. And just what do you think you mean by "died on Friday, Oct. 8?" Are you certain that it was Friday, October 8, or even this year - perhaps he died last year, or will die on Oct 8, but of another year. Frankly, I'm not sure that what you thought you read was what the writer said, and even if what you thought you read was what the writer said, who is to say that the writer said what he actually intended to say, or more importantly, that what the writer actually said was what he thought he was saying and intended to say. Frankly, IF Jacques is _apparently_ dead, who is to say that he is actually dead, or that those who write about the supposed death are actually intending to say that they, do, in fact, think that he is, in fact, dead.... If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... ....G (if, of course, you see it that way...) R (or maybe not...) |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:17 -0400, GregP
wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:59:57 GMT, wrote: intentionally snipped to misrepresent the representer. If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... (Trying to) read Derrida always led me to fidget, get a headache, desperately try to find something else "more important" to do, etc. Imitations are worse. Thankfully most are very brief. Aw, Greg, I suspect anything beyond "See Spot Run" would get you all nervous and twitchy...and FWIW, picking your belly button lint probably doesn't qualify, at least for most, as "more important"... |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:17 -0400, GregP
wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:59:57 GMT, wrote: intentionally snipped to misrepresent the representer. If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... (Trying to) read Derrida always led me to fidget, get a headache, desperately try to find something else "more important" to do, etc. Imitations are worse. Thankfully most are very brief. Aw, Greg, I suspect anything beyond "See Spot Run" would get you all nervous and twitchy...and FWIW, picking your belly button lint probably doesn't qualify, at least for most, as "more important"... |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:17 -0400, GregP wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:59:57 GMT, wrote: intentionally snipped to misrepresent the representer. If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... (Trying to) read Derrida always led me to fidget, get a headache, desperately try to find something else "more important" to do, etc. Imitations are worse. Thankfully most are very brief. Aw, Greg, I suspect anything beyond "See Spot Run" would get you all nervous and twitchy...and FWIW, picking your belly button lint probably doesn't qualify, at least for most, as "more important"... studying derrida a couple of semesters ago proved very challenging, and facing the prospect of writing a paper on his work, as well as foucault's, scared the ****** out of me. getting an *a* on a paper i thought i couldn't write ( and i can write some damned good papers) was one of the most satisfying experiences of my education thus far. snakefiddler |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:07:57 -0400, "snakefiddler"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:17 -0400, GregP wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:59:57 GMT, wrote: intentionally snipped to misrepresent the representer. If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... (Trying to) read Derrida always led me to fidget, get a headache, desperately try to find something else "more important" to do, etc. Imitations are worse. Thankfully most are very brief. Aw, Greg, I suspect anything beyond "See Spot Run" would get you all nervous and twitchy...and FWIW, picking your belly button lint probably doesn't qualify, at least for most, as "more important"... studying derrida a couple of semesters ago proved very challenging, and facing the prospect of writing a paper on his work, as well as foucault's, scared the ****** out of me. getting an *a* on a paper i thought i couldn't write ( and i can write some damned good papers) was one of the most satisfying experiences of my education thus far. snakefiddler And your point...well, other than you want to look like another of the ROFFian wannabe-pseudo-intellectuals? And I can hardly wait until Kenneth, Lord Farthingale joins in this one... Pomp to right of me, Pomp to left of me, Pomp in front of me Post'd and thunder'd; Storm'd with blather and smell, Blindly they wrote and, well, Into the jaws of ROFF, Into the mouth of Hell Typed another "intellectual"... HTH (how's that for irony...), R |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:07:57 -0400, "snakefiddler"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:43:17 -0400, GregP wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:59:57 GMT, wrote: intentionally snipped to misrepresent the representer. If one chooses to accept as fact that the writer is objectively correct and that he is, in fact, dead, RIP...or maybe not, depending on your interpretation of what the writer may or not have thought he meant... (Trying to) read Derrida always led me to fidget, get a headache, desperately try to find something else "more important" to do, etc. Imitations are worse. Thankfully most are very brief. Aw, Greg, I suspect anything beyond "See Spot Run" would get you all nervous and twitchy...and FWIW, picking your belly button lint probably doesn't qualify, at least for most, as "more important"... studying derrida a couple of semesters ago proved very challenging, and facing the prospect of writing a paper on his work, as well as foucault's, scared the ****** out of me. getting an *a* on a paper i thought i couldn't write ( and i can write some damned good papers) was one of the most satisfying experiences of my education thus far. snakefiddler And your point...well, other than you want to look like another of the ROFFian wannabe-pseudo-intellectuals? And I can hardly wait until Kenneth, Lord Farthingale joins in this one... Pomp to right of me, Pomp to left of me, Pomp in front of me Post'd and thunder'd; Storm'd with blather and smell, Blindly they wrote and, well, Into the jaws of ROFF, Into the mouth of Hell Typed another "intellectual"... HTH (how's that for irony...), R |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
|
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:11:50 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: Daisy Mae boasts: ... ( and i can write some damned good papers)... ... And I can hardly wait until Kenneth, Lord Farthingale joins in this one... Lord Farthingale has decided to leave the minor league nuisances to you Dickie. Aw, now, yer Lardsh.., er, Lairdship, no reason to be suicidal...there's cures for the gout, donchaknow...and besides, while you may be minor-league, you're not so much a nuisance as an amusement. Now, terrorism, THERE'S a nuisance...well, according to some, anyhow... Da Dickster |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:11:50 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: Daisy Mae boasts: ... ( and i can write some damned good papers)... ... And I can hardly wait until Kenneth, Lord Farthingale joins in this one... Lord Farthingale has decided to leave the minor league nuisances to you Dickie. Aw, now, yer Lardsh.., er, Lairdship, no reason to be suicidal...there's cures for the gout, donchaknow...and besides, while you may be minor-league, you're not so much a nuisance as an amusement. Now, terrorism, THERE'S a nuisance...well, according to some, anyhow... Da Dickster |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:56:38 GMT, wrote:
Aw, now, yer Lardsh.., er, Lairdship, no reason to be suicidal...there's cures for the gout, donchaknow...and besides, while you may be minor-league, you're not so much a nuisance as an amusement. Now, terrorism, THERE'S a nuisance...well, according to some, anyhow... Bush I, for one. |
Mr Derrida is in deconstruction
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:56:38 GMT, wrote:
Aw, now, yer Lardsh.., er, Lairdship, no reason to be suicidal...there's cures for the gout, donchaknow...and besides, while you may be minor-league, you're not so much a nuisance as an amusement. Now, terrorism, THERE'S a nuisance...well, according to some, anyhow... Bush I, for one. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter