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...)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 wrote:

R (or maybe not...)

chuckle

__________________________________________________ _____________________
\ Mu Young Lee
remove all dashes and underscores in reply address

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.

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"...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 wrote:

R (or maybe not...)

chuckle

__________________________________________________ _____________________
\ Mu Young Lee
remove all dashes and underscores in reply address