600 comments later, more on french theory in america from stanley fish

[sirb...@hotmail.com]

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/french-theory-in-america-part-two/

great stuff

[tg]

On Apr 28, 2:01 am, sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/french-theory-in-america-par...
>
> great stuff

Thanks for posting this. I gave up after the first part received not
much in the way of response here.

-tg

[El Klauso]

Interesting set of reactions noted by the author.

The coments decrying the lucidity of the explanation put me in mind of
the alchemists taking umbrage that some publications concerning thier
art were not sufficiently vague and obscurely-written enough to hide
their trade secrets from the unlearned masses.

[El Klauso]

Interesting set of reactions noted by the author.

The comments decrying the lucidity of the explanation put me in mind
of
the alchemists taking umbrage that some publications concerning their

[sirb...@hotmail.com]

your mind is addressed in ridiculed in the second paragraph, canceled
out.

[sirb...@hotmail.com]

the current films recieved this response to 'great stuff':

''Maybe to some Postmodernists, but not to anyone who respects
rational
thought. ''

[El Klauso]

sirbl: your mind is addressed in ridiculed in the second paragraph,
canceled out.

EK: My mind is not only my statement, as one statement given at one
time cannot encapsulate one mind. It was simply a historical footnote
appertaining to the repetitious nature of supposed intellectual
fashion, not an offer courting facile contentiousness.