Stevie did a Bat Mitzvah

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I like to call it Post-Structuralism, or if one prefers, Deconstructionism...check out Derrida's theory of Differance . He will change the way you think about language and meaning. NOTHING about language is concrete. He'll twist your logic six ways to Sunday .

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.

why? are they nekkid?

[Serrart]

Okay , I've just read four pages of the effects caused by an Amber's or Irishgirl's post. Since I can't find it where is it? Even a small hint would help. Page 10? 15? 22?

Romy

Edit: Thanks anyway, I've been told.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

may I just say: THANK YOU!! now its MY TURN to feel validated. And to point out that the reason Amber was having such a hard time illustrating any error in logic on MY part was due to the fact that I didnt MAKE any. Now, Im off to research Derrida, because I like educating myself and I give a ****.

No prob. I'm a fan of Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism (one feeds right into the next). Derrida is a mad genius! There's a documentary that was released in the past couple of years about his life and theories, you should check it out. I haven't seen it yet, but was told it was fantastic. I've been meaning to rent it for the longest time!

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.

oooooooh dirty and subversive. Me likey

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.

Are you not fond of cunning linguists?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Are you not fond of cunning linguists?

Only if they are clean shaven and freshly bathed - which the French are notoriously loathe to do.

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

may I just say: THANK YOU!! now its MY TURN to feel validated. And to point out that the reason Amber was having such a hard time illustrating any error in logic on MY part was due to the fact that I didnt MAKE any. Now, Im off to research Derrida, because I like educating myself and I give a ****.

yeah, that's still not true even though Cliffdweller shared some interesting theories and thoughts with us right there, that I'm sure are valid and all that, it doesn't really apply to your point, nor does it really illustrate your point as you were previously arguing it. You still made a logical error.
For you to feel your point was validated by that is absurd.
Good try, though. Well, actually, lame try, but that makes sense.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

yeah, that's still not true even though Cliffdweller shared some interesting theories and thoughts with us right there, that I'm sure are valid and all that, it doesn't really apply to your point, nor does it really illustrate your point as you were previously arguing it. You still made a logical error.
For you to feel your point was validated by that is absurd.
Good try, though. Well, actually, lame try, but that makes sense.

poor Amber. egg on face is not your best look.....or maybe it is

[irishgrl]

here's what you said:

And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple.

and here's how Cliffdweller precisely refuted YOU:

NOTHING about language is concrete.

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning.

Which is what I said: that there is more than one way to interpret words.

I supplied a Venn Diagram (in text) to show what I was talking about. Even Jyqm could see that. But YOU conveniently ignore THAT and hold fast to your erroneous position.....I can only conclude that you lied when you said you could admit you were wrong because guess what? you ARE.
to put it another way:
Hope you read this post, and it pissed you off....Little Miss Little Miss Little Miss CANT BE WRONG!!!!!

I will forever think of YOU when I hear that, how priceless

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

here's what you said:

and here's how Cliffdweller precisely refuted YOU:




Which is what I said: that there is more than one way to interpret words.

I supplied a Venn Diagram (in text) to show what I was talking about. Even Jyqm could see that. But YOU conveniently ignore THAT and hold fast to your erroneous position.....I can only conclude that you lied when you said you could admit you were wrong because guess what? you ARE.
to put it another way:
Hope you read this post, and it pissed you off....Little Miss Little Miss Little Miss CANT BE WRONG!!!!!

I will forever think of YOU when I hear that, how priceless

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock on Star Wreck would say - but can I ask how a discussion about Stevie doing a Bat Mitzfah for fun and profit evolved into a discussion of postmodernism??? JUST wondering!

[sarafield]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock on Star Wreck would say - but can I ask how a discussion about Stevie doing a Bat Mitzfah for fun and profit evolved into a discussion of postmodernism??? JUST wondering!

To summarize:

Someone said something about creating more rich assholes; someone drew a not-necessarily-correct conclusion about what the "rich assholes" comment meant; Amber and IrishGirl started using big words; someone brought up Derrida, whose work is irrefutable, apparently; and now IrishGirl is going to think of someone she argued with on a forum every time in the future she hears a song which will forever be in rotation on classic rock radio.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock on Star Wreck would say - but can I ask how a discussion about Stevie doing a Bat Mitzfah for fun and profit evolved into a discussion of postmodernism??? JUST wondering!

There is no mr Spock on Star Wreck.
There's a mr Spökö though and captain Pirk, and a mr Fukov..
Best star trek parody ever

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Which is what I said: that there is more than one way to interpret words.

I supplied a Venn Diagram (in text) to show what I was talking about. Even Jyqm could see that.

However, I don't especially agree with the example of this thread. I was just agreeing to disagree and move on because this has all gotten rather silly. I realize neither of you has a dick to whip out, but surely there be something else we can measure here.

And words most certainly do have concrete meanings (though they may have multiple ones and they may change drastically over time), especially when they're put into context with other words to form sentences.

A strict reading of Derrida (who never read anything strictly) is rarely a good thing.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

And words most certainly do have concrete meanings (though they may have multiple ones and they may change drastically over time), especially when they're put into context with other words to form sentences.

Im sure you'll agree that they can have more than one interpretation however.
A quick perusal of the topic of hermeneutics (Thanks David!) will confirm that.

Just think of how much controversy there is over trying to figure out what the Bible means.....or ANY book for that matter. people filter information all the time

As for the example of this thread and yardsticks to measure ????......You didnt see the PM I got from Amber several weeks ago and so you dont understand my refusal to back down.....sorry about that

btw: you needn't agree to disagree, because if you'll re-read your earlier posts arguing with Jason, you'll see that you actually articulated the same premise I was getting at. I can quote it if you like?