If you're full of shit and you know it then you really oughtn'tshowit
fnord
jet wrote:
> In article <3C61FBC7...@bigpond.com>, fnord <lu...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >jet wrote:
> >
> >> >> Another example of your habit of putting words in someone's mouth (lying).
> >> >> I said anthro doesn't borrow form "deconstructionism", not "cultural
> >> >> theory".
> >
> >I've pointed out the interconnectedness of these theories, and that
> >
> and you're wrong. Anthropology isn't what I'd call a "theory".
Anthropology is an interrelated set of theories (body of knowledge) and
methodologies (formal and material analysis), dingbat.
Are you claiming that anthropological theory, cultural (critical) theory and
deconstructionism aren't interconnected (theoretically and academically)?
> >deconstructionism is currently studied as part of the theoretical component in
> >
> So? The basis of this thread was that I never studied it and had no
> interest in doing so. Go back to the first post where you started ranting,
> and you'll see that.
The thread started with you calming *plonk* and then laming me from behind your
(supposed) killfile. It doesn't matter one iota whether you actually killfiled me
(or not). What is undeniably lame, however, is that you then decided to incite an
argument when, if debating with me isn't something you enjoy, you could have just
continued to ignore my posts. Crying foul because deconstructionism bores your
little tits off, is one thing. Inciting an argument and THEN crying foul is just not
believable.
Actually, it's a magnificent backpedal (& dodge), spankybumbum.
> >anthropology. Stop dodging, your premise is wrong. Anthro does borrow from
> >deconstructionism (and vice versa).
> >
> Nonsense. There are decades of anthropological work that were complete
> before the theory existed and the bulk of current anthropological studies
> have no relationship to deconstructionism. You're placing way too much
> emphasis on a single literary theory.
Correction: cultural theory.
> It simply isn't that important.
Actually, it is. Even according to the "Journal of Anthropological Research" (They
should know, right?). And I quote:
"In recent years the combination of deconstructionism within their discipline and
challenge of an
ascendant cultural studies movement from without have prompted anthropologists to
question
their key concept-culture."
http://www.unm.edu/~jar/v56n2.html#a1
> >You said that deconstructionism wasn't cultural theory, too.
> >
> >"Deconstructionism isn't cultural theory." <a3gi96$6k5$1...@paradoxa.ogoense.net>
> >
> >Would you like to amend this now?
> >
> Would you like to post a published definition that doesn't say it's
> literary theory?
I'll post some supporting evidence that deconstructionism isn't * just* literary
theory (although it started out that way).
----------------------------------
Look here, even architects use it within the field of design:
http://www.geocities.com/archinode/deconstructivism.htm
And here, in critical theory:
http://kate.massart.edu/cgi-bin/crs_descr.pl?dept=cs&crs=CSA341
Here's an interesting one. An introduction to a text called "Non-Places:
Introduction to an Anthropology Of Super-modernity"
http://www.physicsroom.org.nz/log/archive/10soft.htm
New Mexico University Business & Management Studies:
Week 6: Ethnography: Assumptions, theories, concepts, paradigms
Week 8: Critical and postmodern ethnography
Week 9: Field work using deconstruction, hermeneutics (link to chart), & symbolic
interactionism
Week 14: Feminisms, deconstructions, & other narrative analysis
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/mgt/handout/boje/661asg/
As you can see, deconstructionism (and it's related critical theories i.e.
postmodernism & post-structuralism) is (are) studied in areas not traditionally
associated with literary theory. In fact, within architecture it's used in relation
to formal considerations (material design), not just within architectural theory.
----------------------------------
Now, you're quite clearly wrong when you state that "deconstructionism isn't
cultural theory." For the second time (And I am patient), would you like to amend
this? Or shall we content ourselves by taking your silence as evidence of your
error?
> >> Since the theory of deconstructionism post dates the discipline
> >> >> of Anthropology by several decades, that's correct.
> >
> >Your argument is just as ridiculous as saying that modern medicine (a science
> >developed in the Enlightenment) has no use for areas such as immunology, as
> > AIDS
> >(auto-immune illness) wasn't discovered until the seventies.
> >
> That's a really bad analogy. What I'm saying is that immunology wasn't
> a fundamental part of medicine before immunology existed.
I know exactly what you're trying to say, and believe me, it's a non argument. It's
quite obvious that deconstructionism wasn't part of anthropological thought until
the theory established itself within wider cultural (and academic) circles.
Don't waste my time with moot arguments. Stop blathering and desperately splitting
hairs, then you might actually have a chance at injecting a bit of substance into
your posts (in lieu of anything actually resembling entertainment).
[....]
> > I'm not wrong (and neither is my definition) you're just don't know what the
> > fuck
> >you're talking about. Engage brain before fingers, bucko.
> >
> Your "definition" wasn't a definition. It was a partial description of
> one use of the theory. It did not define or explain the theory.
Please state where (& how) it didn't "define" or "explain" the theory.
> >> You can insist until you're blue in the face, that I studied
> >> deconstructionism but, you don't know and you weren't there(actually,
> >> the week in Anthro Thought was dedicated to Post Modernism. Whoopie, 3
> >> whole days to learn this theory you seem to think is the foundation of
> >> life itself).
> >
> >It forms the theoretical basis for current studies in anthropology. And next
> >
> No, it doesn't. Find me a single US University in which deconstructionism
> is more that a couple of days study in one course for an anthro degree.
Degree: Associate of Arts -- Concentration in Anthropology
L200/L300 LANGUAGE AND CULTURE / CULTURE AND LANGUAGE
"structural linguistics; discourse analysis and deconstructionism"
http://www.iun.edu/~anthronw/programs.htm
ANTH 50-05
Culture/Self: Approaches from the Anthropology of Language and Communication
"In this newly designed course, we will examine how language and communication
mediate and CONSTRUCT our (racial, class, gender, individual) identities in
relationship to community, culture, and society." [Read: deconstructionism. It's
often used in feminist studies (deconstructing cultural narratives of gender &
identity), too]
http://www.macalester.edu/registrar/fallAG.html
ANTH 703000
History of Anthropological Theory 3 units
Professor Donald Robotham
"The course concludes by glancing forward-towards the theories of post-structuralism
and postmodernism which have emerged against this backdrop in the 1980s and 1990s."
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Anthropology/courses_f01desc.html
[Note: "Deconstructionism is part of a movement called poststructuralism"[1]. Post
structuralism is often seen as synonymous (if not integrally related) with
postmodernism.]
> It certainly isn't "the" theoretical basis for current anthropology, by any
> standards.
Here's one in the Uk (Don't be Americentric), University of St Andrews:
Duration: Whole Year. Teaching: 2 hours (seminar, lectures or tutorials)
"The module discusses the description of human society and culture, focusing on both
heoretical and empirical issues by reference to selected ethnographic material.
It will consider such matters as relativism, deconstructionism and the modelling of
social
forms and, at a more specific level, the main concepts for describing the
institutional features
of the full variety of human societies".
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/services/admissions/pdfs/Phil.pdf
[....]
> >spiral of insecurity, net-posturing and ego inflation. Any thread that touches
> > you
> >ends up tedious, brittle and dull. In short, you suck.
> >
> Ask your teachers. Your opinion is biased by this weird alpha female
> wannabe stage you're going through. I wonder what your teachers would
> think of your inability to stay focused and civil, and your habit of
> trying to control a discussion with invective, when someone disagrees
> with you.
Your capacity for freakishly huge PKBs knows no bounds, especially when you do such
a rotten job at remaining civil and focused yourself. This was your reply to me
after I had (quite peacefully) offered my definition. Again, you could have just
ignored it (and me):
"Thanks for fucking up the thread by answering that. <sigh>"
" Now, go away." <a39um2$9an$1...@paradoxa.ogoense.net>
As for alpha females, and whatever current "stage" I might be going through; I can
assure you the kick-arse (alpha) women of the teh flonk that I ADORE do not include
the likes of you. When have you ever posted something creative and delicious? Some
fabulous narrative prose, a bitingly sarcastic observation (not relating to your own
overt posturing in alt.flame or alt.hackers.malicious) or an acerbic, yet lovingly
dorky quip?
Never. Maybe that's the problem, you don't cut it as someone who deserves my
admiration. All I see is you posturing and desperately scrabbling to cover your
errors in an endless game of
whinge//backpedal//lame//backpedal//slurp//lame//plonk//lame//backpedal (ad
infinitum--ad nausium).
Go on, do something out of the ordinary and amuse me for once. I dare you.
> >> All you're doing is posting because you get
> >> your rocks off on thinking you're the Master of Debate, when nobody
> >> I know of other than Russell -wants- to debate with you.
> >
> >I get my rocks off by shining a torch behind your head and watching the light
> > stream
> >through.
> >
> You're not really -that- bright, you know. :)
Next to you I'm a fucking light box, sweetheart.
> >> Think of the people who've dropped threads with you because you try to put
> > words
> >> in
> >> their mouths and *stop fucking doing it*.
> >
> >I've never had a problem finding or starting enough threads to keep me
> > occupied. If
> >
> Funny how many people bail when you start lecturing.
Do you think I'm not conscious of my tone or inflection? I'm not a fucking teacher,
I'm not here to "brain sit" for people who cant be arsed putting in a little
thinking time. If my style of interaction irks you (or anyone else), don't waste my
time (or yours) by bothering to respond to me. I certainly wont be waiting, heart
clutched in hand, for you to reply.
> >anything, I have to moderate the time I spend on usenet. I don't need to put
> > words
> >in your mouth, Jet. You do an amazingly proficient job of uttering idiocy as it
> > is.
> >I'm just here to point it out.
> >
> You haven't done so, yet.
Au contraire, you fat-arsed wombat. Pay attention.
> >> >People like that just end up regurgitating
> >> > stuff
> >> >that they don't understand, but they never manage to actually critique
> >> > (critically
> >> >think).
> >> >
> >> and when people tell you they have no interest in what you're talking
> >> about, you should listen. Do you see me banging away at you because you
> >> don't know and probably don't care about restoration and preservation
> >> of antiquities, or keeping a photo catalog in the field?
> >
> >When you *plonk* someone, you should do as you say and not incite an argument
> > where
> >there wasn't one. Capish?
> >
> You made it an argument from your first post in the thread. You always
> do. Plonking isn't a sacred vow, lurkie. A lot of the time, it's simply
> meant as an insult or a joke.
My first post wasn't argumentative, spanky. It was merely a general introduction to
deconstructionism.
[....]
> >No. You just accused me of lying. Where did I *deliberately* misquote the
> > source?
> >
> >(You're so easy, it's almost criminal.)
> >
> See above. I said your terrible grammer and spelling were the reasons
> your definition was "poor" (and I don't consider terrible grammer
> representative of a "decent essay", btw. What the hell are your teachers
> thinking). You countered with unrelated quotes that you (inaccurately)
> say were my stated reasons for calling it a "non definition".
I'm trying to ascertain what your reasons are. You never explained why my definition
was a "non definition". I postulate that this is because you have no concept of what
deconstructionism actually means.
> Note: please don't waste my time with your usual back pedal about what
> I "implied".
No. If you didn't bother wasting my time by backpedalling in the first instance, we
wouldn't be still having this exchange, stinky.
> The quotes were replies to your "definition", not the reasons I gave for
> it being a "non-definition". In fact, I didn't give any reasons for that,
> other than my opinion that it was.
Right, you didn't give me a reason, you backpedalled (and with each hapless dodge,
your reasons become increasingly transparent as your ignorance covets the lime
light)
> >> >The main reason you dislike discussing anything with me is that I routinely
> >> > called
> >> >you on your shit.
> >> >
> >> No, you've called me on shit that you make up from misunderstood bits
> >> of my posts.
> >
> >No. I've called you on your shit, full stop.
> >
> 'C' for overwrought posturing, lack of objectivity and control and
> inability to stick to the topic.
D is for Dumnchunk, 'cos that's what you are
E is for Empty, vacant and bizarre.
F for Fallacious, your arguments they be
G is for *giggle*, at Jet's hypocrisy
You're not fit to judge, you gas-bagging shrew. Now get the FUCK out of my classroom
(you pontificating plod).
> Australian teachers must be very
> lenient. I'm looking forward to seeing what grade your teachers give
> to it.
Don't be so ridiculous. I'm sure they'd still be laughing into their lattes over
your assertion that deconstructionism isn't cultural theory, spanky.
--------
[1] http://answers.org/issues/derrida.html
headkase
you know
cascadings fun.
JungleAcid
<head...@rejectedbytheswiss.com> wrote:
>you know
>cascadings fun.
fun cascadings
know you.
--
JA15x6,2
fnord
JungleAcid wrote:
cascadings know
you fun.
JungleAcid
fuckhead is the mother of cascading necessity; fun, you know?
--
JA15x6,2
fnord
JungleAcid wrote:
fuckhead is the mother of cascading necrosis; fun, you know?
JungleAcid
>
>
>JungleAcid wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:27:53 +1030, fnord <lu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >JungleAcid wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12 Feb 2002 12:05:11 GMT, headkase
>> >> <head...@rejectedbytheswiss.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >you know
>> >> >cascadings fun.
>> >>
>> >> fun cascadings
>> >> know you.
>> >
>> >cascadings know
>> >you fun.
>>
>> fuckhead is the mother of cascading necessity; fun, you know?
>
>fuckhead is the mother of cascading necrosis; fun, you know?
>
fuckhead is the mother of cascading neurosis; fun, you know?
--
JA15x6,2
fnord
JungleAcid wrote:
fuckhead is the mother of cascading neuritis; fun, you know?