Deconstruction/ GI and MIKE M sissy slap fest

[MurkPlectrum]

It's Murk's M.O. He did it in the summer reading thread as well. Throw down an opinion, refuse to discuss said opinion, call argument stupid then leave. Something about courage of convictions springs to mind.

& yr M.O. is to be a lying asshole?

Just checking.

[MurkPlectrum]

Murk, old pal, you can't threaten to bust some hard think-moves and then hold back, expecting us to sit in awe. I would genuinely like to know how I have misrepresented deconstruction.

And appeals to authority don't hold a lot of water in the open theater.

Point me to where you represent deconstruction & if you really want my view I'll give it. I don't feel like surfing back thru the thread right now.

By the way, don't sit back in awe on my account. I forgot the part where I asked you to. I also forgot the part where yr final sentence makes any sense without further elaboration. Are you actually saying that I shldn't appeal to what Derrida or Spivak or de Man have to say abt deconstruction when giving an account of deconstruction? & that then when I move on to relativity theory I shld leave Einstein out of it?

[coldforge]

Murk, I think people would respect you more if

1) You weren't a nimrod

but mostly

2) You stopped say 'yr' as much as possible.

[MurkPlectrum]

Murk, I think people would respect you more if

1) You weren't a nimrod

but mostly

2) You stopped say 'yr' as much as possible.

K. Thanks for sharing.

[SPACERACE]

dude i'm sure you're not stupid or a dick, so why act like it on the internet?

[C of heartbreak]

I think his persona has just grown wild and uncontrollable.

[SPACERACE]

i think he's being a little more callous then necessary sometimes.

i mean, the accusations levelled against him here are perfectly valid. he said no one had represented the topic at hand properly, and then refused to elaborate. sounds pretty weak to me.

[MurkPlectrum]

i think he's being a little more callous then necessary sometimes.

i mean, the accusations levelled against him here are perfectly valid. he said no one had represented the topic at hand properly, and then refused to elaborate. sounds pretty weak to me.

But . . . but . . . "perfectly valid"???!?!? But . . . I . . . just . . . don't . . . get . . . why . . . no one read my second post, posted about three minutes after the first one, where, in response to someone pleading w/ me not to reopen this can of worms, I said, in effect: Yeah, I just looked over this thread a little more carefully, & I can see how it's really not worth continuing this discussion.

I mean, shit, why is that not valid? No one had yet responded re my first post to say, OK, explain why people are getting it wrong. I withdrew my criticism BEFORE anyone asked me to explain myself. Is it so crazy that I shld respond, no thanks, I changed my mind, as you see above. I changed my mind almost IMMEDIATELY after posting. Dude can't decide, actually, on second thought, nevermind? If not, why not?

[MurkPlectrum]

dude i'm sure you're not stupid or a dick, so why act like it on the internet?

Also, yeah, I mean, my friends & colleagues tend not to think I'm stupid or a dick (that I know of). So maybe it has something to do w/ the way people keep calling me a nimrod or a dick or whatever WITHOUT checking out my interlocuters' behavior, which has been pretty outright rude since the moment I logged into LPTJ, & which is making me think twice abt sticking around. I give an opinion, someone thinks opinion obnoxious, & instead of attacking the opinion they attack ME. So, yeah, I get all dicky abt it.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I give an opinion, someone thinks opinion obnoxious, & instead of attacking the opinion they attack ME. So, yeah, I get all dicky abt it.

that's a common internet m.o., i'm afraid.

[elpollodiablo]

I'll bet with all the time you save not typing vowels, you'll be able to have a lot more non-debates with strangers on the internet.

[folder]

I'm fairly sure some people just react poorly to seeing the English language consistently butchered.

[SPACERACE]

Nah, it really don't matter. I was just skimming the thread, saw some pretty glaring mischaracterizations on both sides, then read a little more thoroughly & realized that some of the people getting all OOOOH abt deconstruction hadn't really read any, so no point in talking to them.

Also: deconstruction? It's 2006. Shldn't heads be getting pissed abt posthistoricism or something?

i'm just saying that this is a pretty condescending dismissal to be put forth without an explanation. again, i'm sure you're cool, but that doesn't fly. if you did mention your reasons, and i'm inexplicably missing your retraction every time i re-read that portion of thread, please feel free to correct me.

[lepetitchou]

despite the mounds of shit that everyone gives every new field of study that's ever come out, and not just deconstruction:

it's important and adds a sense of transparency into discussions, even if it just exposes them as language games.  it's an integral part of ongoing literary discussion (as dismal as they get sometimes).

christ, embrace intellect every once in a while.  find something difficult to do, and do it right (your english music)

[Good Intentions]

Which is funny, because G.I.'s formal training is in computer science [or is it computer engineering?]

Dave's on the money - computer engineering (software and electronics). My particular field of interest is artificial intelligence, but I've had formal training in electronics, computer science, control system theory and a few other fields that interest only us.

[Good Intentions]

Me, I'm genuinely interested in seeing the views I present on here genuinely challenged - it's why I post here. That is why I asked, despite your "ok, I'll back off" post, to elaborate on how I misrepresented deconstruction. You led me to believe that I missed the mark by saying that both sides had played less than perfectly, and I was the flagbearer of the pro-deconstruction side in this debate.

If you don't want to do it here, my email address is right below this post.

But, there is quite a difference, in tone and in meaning, between this  perfectly reasonable but perhaps overly defensive statement:

I withdrew my criticism BEFORE anyone asked me to explain myself. Is it so crazy that I shld respond, no thanks, I changed my mind, as you see above.

and this:

I also forgot the part where yr final sentence makes any sense without further elaboration. Are you actually saying that I shldn't appeal to what Derrida or Spivak or de Man have to say abt deconstruction when giving an account of deconstruction? & that then when I move on to relativity theory I shld leave Einstein out of it?

[milly balgeary]

Which is funny, because G.I.'s formal training is in computer science [or is it computer engineering?]

Dave's on the money - computer engineering (software and electronics). My particular field of interest is artificial intelligence, but I've had formal training in electronics, computer science, control system theory and a few other fields that interest only us.

GI, until you cut the P tail your formal training is in THAT. I don't care if South Africa has a P tail trend.

[moloko_plus]

yesssss!

[Good Intentions]

My ponytail is autodidactic. You'd have to teach me how not to grow it.

[moloko_plus]

time for a P-tail-derail

[SPACERACE]

just bun it, that's what i do. as long as you've got at least like, 10-12 inches worth, it's possible, and it looks classy when done properly.

[milly balgeary]

It's never a derail. P Tails are horribly important, PLUS.

[MurkPlectrum]

Me, I'm genuinely interested in seeing the views I present on here genuinely challenged - it's why I post here. That is why I asked, despite your "ok, I'll back off" post, to elaborate on how I misrepresented deconstruction. You led me to believe that I missed the mark by saying that both sides had played less than perfectly, and I was the flagbearer of the pro-deconstruction side in this debate.

If you don't want to do it here, my email address is right below this post.

But, there is quite a difference, in tone and in meaning, between this  perfectly reasonable but perhaps overly defensive statement:

I withdrew my criticism BEFORE anyone asked me to explain myself. Is it so crazy that I shld respond, no thanks, I changed my mind, as you see above.

and this:

I also forgot the part where yr final sentence makes any sense without further elaboration. Are you actually saying that I shldn't appeal to what Derrida or Spivak or de Man have to say abt deconstruction when giving an account of deconstruction? & that then when I move on to relativity theory I shld leave Einstein out of it?

Yeah. I reread the thread (sigh) & don't think I should have implied you misrepresented anything.

As for the consistent hating on my vowel dropping, that shit's just funny. Anyone who thinks it constitutes "butchery of the English language" has a lot to be mad at, um, Dickens, Austen, Pound, Eliot, Bishop, Robert Lowell, & many more ABT. Abbreviating in correspondence is a time-honored convention & those guys did it for the same reason I do: easier. Saves time. This ain't a fucking academic journal & I hereby swear to never stop abbreviating. Also, in case you care, you might have noticed that I'm consistent in it. I abbreviate your, and, with, about, should, could, would, & a few others. Gee, I wonder what those have in common??

You dudes got a vowel fetish. I know it. Ooooo, a U! Look at the curve on that O! Perverts.

xpost: last paragraphs directed at folder & pollo. two guys who fuckin LOVE the English language & they don't care who knows it!

[milly balgeary]

My ponytail is autodidactic. You'd have to teach me how not to grow it.

Isn't autodidactic...wait.. hey.. that's a goddamn conflict! P-tail VS the body politic. Who will win?
Story at 11.

[moloko_plus]

p tail will win. it always wins.
P Tale 2: The Awakening
(or electric boogaloo, whatever)

btw, thanks for the e-books!