This Post Is Not Worth Reading

Yeah, this shows that you want it all to rest. Right. (Updated)

1. JG:

But does it follow, then, that I wasn’t eager to help out nonetheless? Because that is what Haggerty is trying to suggest here by noting the “fabrication.”

Jeff and his commenters were the only ones who ever cared about the IP address crap. After being pissed off for about an hour, I deliberately tried to keep the comment about my daughter from being an issue, as even comments of mine at PW will show. (Anyway, Blogger doesn't give out IP addresses for comments, not without subpoenas. Go ask them yourself, if you don't believe me.) I never asked for his "help"; I didn't really want to know the name of the commenter (though I was briefly baited into saying I would, and then contacted Blogger, and hence found out about the subpoena thing.) Anyway, the chronology and references provided by Bas-o-Matic in Balloon Juice comments here show what happened, and when, with references. Bas also quotes what I had hoped would be my final comment on the matter, closing it:

Upon final thought I do think it was one of his commenters who said it, but that’s not reflective of anything or anyone beyond the fact that whoever said it is a sick little bastard who deserves scorn. And I have no desire to think about this any further.

And I still don't want to think of it. As Bas showed there and here, though, it was Jeff and the PW people who kept bringing it up, accusing me of using it against them -- even after the quote above specifically said I did not hold anyone but the specific person who said it responsible for it. (And I still think it was a PW person who went overboard and said it. But so? In context, I was very clear that that is speculation, though it's actually pretty likely, and I was also clear that it means nothing beyond that as far as reflecting on JG or anyone else. He could have let it drop. He didn't.)

2. JG says;

I’d like to point out that Dr Haggerty doesn’t seem to couch his very public concerns over comments made about his daughter as “victim-playing.”  But then, such are the pitfalls of engaging in selective outrage.

See above. I myself have never referenced the comment after I deleted Metacomments, and never asked anyone to do so on my behalf. (Email NTodd: he posted something about it at the time, and I asked him to pull it down.) Whenever anyone does post about it, I link to Bas-o-Matic's Balloon Juice comments, because those lay out what really happened and show that I don't want it discussed. My hope is that this gives people the hint.

3. JG writes:

I’ve said, simply, that Haggerty allows the story to circulate uncorrected.  And by directing this comment to me rather than correcting Ferguson, he is continuing this practice.  He just doesn’t like to get his hands dirty.

Again: I've linked to Bas-o-Matic's posts in comments wherever this comes up. This usually takes care of it. JG is usually there first to continue to spread his inaccurate version of the comment story, though. These two posts I've found correct misapprehensions on the part of people who take "my side," and also effectively rebut the slander that I've ever used the comment to tar JG. I continue to be grateful to Bas for taking the trouble to write them.

If JG wants me to email every blogger in the world about a comment I wanted forgotten after about an hour of being totally enraged, though, he can forget it.

As for the "hands dirty" bit: no. I'd be much happier if this were never mentioned again. JG should feel free to use Bas-o-Matic's links (which are not just his opinions, but include references to my old site) to clear the air.   

3. JG writes:

Dr Haggerty was the first to appeal to credentials as a point of art in our debates (he denies he did this, but I certainly seemed convinced at the time that he’d done so, as did others; and now that his site is gone, there is no way to prove it one way or the other); I simply complied with the terms he established—and in fact was more than willing to do so without bringing his name into it.  This is what Haggerty is getting at in his comment at Firegodlake when he writes, ominously, that I made the “decision to solicit information” about him.

No, I never mentioned my credentials on my site, and I also never disparaged JGs. JG's evidence that I did so is that he thought I did, and so did so many of his commenters.

Again, I can’t prove or disprove this, because I don’t have his original posts—but if he didn’t introduce this information into the debate, I’m certain one of his commenters or defenders did—and as a way to try to cow me into bowing before his credentials—else where would I have gotten the idea, and why would I have referred to it in my commentary at the time?

Huh? This isn't a convincing argument. The "credentials" issues belong to JG alone. Myself, I can't really begin to express how little I care about "credentials" of any sort in any way, except perhaps when it comes to medicine.

I see also that JG neglects to mention, again, that at my site he asked for the credentials of MY WIFE. This is important, first, because it's a scummy thing to do: aside from a few posts at my old site, she had no role in the "debate."  And, second, the way to get my information publicly was through her site.

JG most certainly did egg on his commenters to find our information, helpfully providing the CC clue -- he explains himself how he got it, through Yahoo and Google. He set it up pretty nicely, really, keeping his hands as "clean" as possible. But he did it. (I especially enjoyed the "redaction" that became an "unredaction" in a few hours.)

The only thing I'm still really angry about in this whole stupid spectacle is JG's decision, and it was his alone, to bring my wife into this. That remains a despicable and inexcusable act.

4. JG writes:

As for his info NOT being available on NTodd’s site, I don’t know what is available there now (his link proves nothing of what was available back in May of last year).  I do know, however, that I emailed him noting that I broke a link to his picture on that site—and were you to read the comment threads in the posts that I linked, you’ll find that his story doesn’t seem to jibe with contemporary accounts.

NTodd can answer this in more detail if he wants, but please do look at those "contemporary accounts."  They make my case, not JG's. 

The email JG refers to predates this encounter, and anyway was not to one of NTodd's picture sets (it was someone else's). JG took down the link because I emailed him and told him that while there were pictures of me up there and he wanted to make fun of my personal appearance, there were also pictures of my kids there. I'm still glad he did it, for the sake of the little ones, but the original link was still kind of an asshole thing to do. (He'd linked to pictures of me before and encouraged his commenters to mock me -- so no, I don't like JG, and he's hardly the innocent he sometimes likes to play.) 

5. JG writes:

If my readers “deluged Thers with hate mail and threats,” why haven’t we seen them?  Cite them. Give names.

Why would I keep that shit around? The really creepy one came in the form of a comment on Whiskey Ashes that, as far as I could tell by a rough correlation with Site Meter, came from a foreign ISP that was probably hijacked for the purposes of the threat. Mentioned my kids, in a freaky mobster "and how are your children?" kind of a way. Blogger, again, wouldn't help me find the comment's origin (and this one was to my mind far more serious than now notorious "comment," because it rang like a direct threat.) That's why I'm at TypePad now.

But hey, nobody called me at work. So I'll give the PW folks that much.

6. JG writes:

were you able to read through the entirety of our “debate” exchange (something you cannot do, unfortunately, because Haggerty removed his posts and comments), you’d see very clearly that it was I who was arguing in good faith, and Haggerty who was trying to incite his readership into ad hominem attacks, so willing was he to engage in them himself.

Um. Well, not exactly. Scott didn't like my tone, for which I don't blame him, as he didn't know the history (JG directing his readers' attention to photos of me, for instance), and also by his own admission wasn't familiar with political blog invective. But he also made the mistake of assuming I was attacking "intentionalism," when I was attacking the JG version of it, "radical intentionalism." He also didn't read all of my posts on the topic. No blame to him, again. But the correspondence between conservatism and intentionalism was something he read into my argument, not something I said. As I told him in email, I could see how he got that impression, but it wasn't my argument.

Two parts of that Valve thread are worth pointing out -- one, a reference to a comment Scott left on Lindsay Beyerstein's blog, where he said "'intentionalism' is shorthand not for an interpretive apparatus, but for a particular orientation toward a text, one commonly associated with Walter Benn Michael and Stephen Knapp’s “Against Theory” essays." To which DB replies:

The thing is, for Goldstein, intentionalism is indeed an interpretive apparatus. He’s not following anybody into an intentionalist debate, and merely delights in knocking down school after school of literary theory.

To which Scott didn't respond, because he hadn't read JG's "notes." This point though, is exactly the one I was hammering: treating intentionalism as an "interpretive apparatus" leads to ludicrous results. And that's what JG does, all the time, though much more so on his blog than in the notes.

The other is John Holbo's point:

The real problem with Goldstein’s position is his claim that, if you read while ignoring intention this would be irrelevant to the question of meaning. This flagrantly begs the question. The question is whether there is a distinction between what we might call ‘speaker meaning’ and ‘sentence meaning’ (to pick a likely pair of tags.) Searle and others (including myself) say yes. Knapp and Michaels say no. What Goldstein is doing here is conceding that the distinction may be real but insisting on not calling the second thing ‘meaning’. We’ll do the analytic philosopher thing, then, and humor him by granting that it’s ‘schmeaning’, instead. A related concept. Now we have ‘speaker meaning’ and ‘sentence schmeaning’. Two things, not one. ‘Sentence schmeaning’ refers to the very thing that Searle and others call ‘sentence meaning’. It’s got propositional content and all the good stuff that we associate with ‘meaning’, and ‘meaning’ is the ordinary word for it, so there really doesn’t seem to be any good reason to deny it this title. But if you really really really don’t want to call it ‘meaning’, then fine. Have it your way. It’s ‘schmeaning’.

So Searle (and I) are right that there are two things, not one. And Knapp and Michaels are wrong that there is only one thing, not two. But by restricting ‘meaning’ to only one thing - the intentional thing - Goldstein has written a formula for a merely verbal victory for the Knapp and Michaels side. ‘All meaning is intentional’ has been made a trivial truth that doesn’t really touch the real issue.

Make sense? To put it another way, Goldstein is hitching ‘meaning’ very strictly to a certain sort of intepretative activity. This seems to me a completely arbitrary - and quite confusing - restriction of the use of ‘meaning’.

Understand my point about algebra now? To be sure, JH doesn't use words like "paste eater." I also assume JG didn't make any "pepperoni pizza" jokes about JH.

I will admit freely that a lot of what I was doing in that exchange was baiting JG. The quote about "literature" Scott took exception to is a paraphrase from Language and Symbolic Power. My sense was that JG had one theory and was overcommitted to it, and wasn't aware of other approaches to the issue. His response to that post confirmed that, so I used Bourdieu, who provided a lot of the theoretical framework for my dissertation on modern Irish censorship. Mean, yes. Oh well. No, I wasn't playing nice. Oh well.

But JG recently quoted Bourdieu at me in a rather bizarre TBogg thread, so I assume he may now be up to speed. The point remains though that the flaws in JGs approach are obvious.

7. JG writes:

At the end of the day, Andrew Haggerty is, for all his pretensions, nothing but an associate professor at a community college—one who pretends to great erudition but who, when challenged, resorts to launching juvenile ad hominem attacks from behind a pseudonym that he argues should shield him from responsibilty for his own words.

I like my job. I like teaching, and I like my students. If someone feels that teaching at a community college is somehow embarrassing -- well, that's their issue, not mine. Mostly I like to use the pseudonym  because I don't really want my students to know about my politics. I don't discuss politics in the classroom except in a neutral fashion, as issues for the students to debate, if they're relevant. I don't want a student to worry about being graded down because of what their opinions are as opposed to how they express them. Whether or not anyone believes me about this, I don't care, but that's why I use the pseudonym.

8. JG writes:

And please, do click the link he provides to “Tac,” and see if you giggle at “Tac” having “caught me out in a direct lie.” Because again, the mere fact of a link doesn’t make it so.

Especially if you don't read it. JG said Tac said something in an email which Tac was forced to admit wasn't true.

9.  I will never again mention JG on this blog, ever, or anywhere else. After I submit this post, I have no memory of this nonsense. If pressed, I will link to this post. But that's it.

If JG wants, I will say here: "JEFF GOLDSTEIN BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT COMMENT ABOUT MY DAUGHTER" and he can link and quote it if it ever comes up again, which I hope it doesn't.

But I'm not discussing this further.

UPDATE: The Kenosha Kid makes a useful intervention.

UPDATE: One but needs to go check the links JG provides in his green update to see that they support my case, not his -- not least in his obvious and indeed bizarre overinvestment in this nonsense. Nice try, though. Say good night, Gracie.

Comments

[Spokane Moderate]

Misleading title, IMO.

[Thers]

SM, well, thanks. But I really do think this is more tedious than anything else.

[Scott Lemieux]

JG's evidence that I did so is that he thought I did, and so did so many of his commenters.

Wow, that a nice tautology--the fact that they were using your alleged cite of credentials as a pretext for outing means is evidence you were citing your credentials! (And, BTW, if it was part of your argument, wouldn't it show up in one of Goldstein's many block quotes of your argument?) Then making your responsible for third parties as a back-up--that's a nice diversion.

In fairness, there were several people at the time making pointless, mean-spirited references to his not having his doctorate, staying at him with his kids, etc., so he me have been conflating you with other liberal critics. But I don't believe you were one of them.

[Thers]

Scott --

No. There were people making such attacks. Mine were pretty vicious, but confined to what he actually wrote. I was as abrasive as possible, to be sure. But not about that.

[The Kenosha Kid]

2
So I misremembered. And so when I wrote that my “ “[h]aving been subjected to an attack on my kid by some sick twist made me particularly eager to help out in that regard,” I erred.

+

2
(he denies he did this, but I certainly seemed convinced at the time that he’d done so, as did others; and now that his site is gone, there is no way to prove it one way or the other)

=5

Dr Haggerty needs to refamiliarize himself with events, and correct the record fully.

[four legs good]

Good grief. How very fucking tiresome the whole affair was.

Can't they get a life?

[Pfc. Leftard]

Oh dear. Goldstein's fluffers are going to be here soon.

[flory]

It's like the Energizer bunny. You can't shut the damn thing down....

[geoduck2]

How very freaking odd.

I'm sorry you still have to deal with this nonsense.

(By the way - I saw a fun documentary about Bourdieu. Was fun; Here's a link if anybody is interested: http://www.frif.com/new2002/socio.html
("La Sociologie est un sport de combat")

[pseudonymous in nc]

On the one hand, the Godlstench gets worse and worse.

On the other hand, I fucking wish TRex hadn't turned over that particular stone, because it just wakes up all the creepy-crawlies.

They get such a fucking thrill from revving it up again at the thinnest opportunity, and I suspect they will continue to do it again and again until Jeffrey is involuntarily committed or at very least has his blog (or his family) forcibly taken from him.

No, I'm serious here. I look at the coverage of Britney and see jokes about rehab for a woman who needs serious mental healthcare. I look, through half-closed eyes, at that disgrace of a blog and see a virtual version of RD Laing's Archway: except that it's not a confined space for people to live out their symptoms; it's wide open, and as such, dangerous.

And with that, I shall take the red pill and try to forget that such an execrable man exists.

[Tom - 大肚腩]

So Goldstein's readership numbers must not be providing for the gold ring of wingnut welfare from FrumpyHouseCoatMedia, so he's targeting some froth by trolling for a blog-kerfuffle.

Imagine that. Too bad for Pasty, that far from being the pot of gold, his blog has become an albatross hanging around and weighing him down.

[NYMary]

I fucking wish TRex hadn't turned over that particular stone, because it just wakes up all the creepy-crawlies.

A-fucking-men.

They're still conflating us in the comments over there, which is patently unfair for about fifteen different reasons, not the least of which is that I wasn't involved in the dust-up in any way. I don't really enjoy the bloodsport aspect of blogging; it's community building for me. For that reason, I've always been more "out there" than Thers, less protective of my identity and information. I think I was involved in one blogwar once, when the Freepers came to all our blogs (and suggested one of our children looked like she had spina bifida--attacking children is clearly a favored tactic). It left me feeling scummy and bitter; why would I seek out more such encounters?

In any case, Thers knows where I stand on all this, and it's no one else's business.

[Thers]

If this hadn't popped up on freaking Memeorandum -- where I saw it -- I probably wouldn't have replied at length.

[roger]

i'm just sorry i missed a picture of thers and nymary. well, sorry also for their outing and the threats.

[Scott Lemieux]

If this hadn't popped up on freaking Memeorandum -- where I saw it -- I probably wouldn't have replied at length.

Yeah, I wondered about that--how in the hell did the revival of a long-dead blogwar that wasn't even particularly interesting at the time (and what broader interest it had was because if what it said about the long-dead Online Integritude project, which its founder has all but admitted was a bad faith fraud anyway) become a featured story at memorandum? If people want to help Goldstein get a better renewal deal from XFL Media fine with me, but what's the broader interest for this shit?

[BillyB1]

I actually registered over at Goldstein's sight so I could tell he and his little wussy-boys what men they were.

Geez, that ass is a complete tool.

[BillyB1]

(and suggested one of our children looked like she had spina bifida--attacking children is clearly a favored tactic)

Mary - That's exactly what I was referring to when I was calling them wussies.

I won't be going back to that silly mess over there.

A complete waste of energy.

[Thers]

roger - there's still a photo up at NTodd's.

scott -- I was amazed at that too. I mean, I barely care about this anymore. This was "news"?

[Brian]

"I will never again mention JG on this blog, ever, or anywhere else"

Congratulations! You're on the first step to recovery. We all wish you would have taken this step before dredging up this childish brouhaha, but you obviously couldn't help but embarrass yourself....again.

Don't go away mad. Just go the fuck away.

[mrstrailerco]

I'm sorry you to have had to put up with this shit. I hope it's not causing too much trouble in the rest of your lives.
PW readers = stupid, loud and proud of it.
And don't EVEN get me started about the difference between univ profs and CC profs. As the mom (and check writer) of a univ student who had to take a math class 3 TIMES, and then had to go take it at the CC, where she actually understood what was being taught, I LOVE YOU GUYS.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Um, Brian? Brian Timm? Thanks for proving that neither reading nor logic skills are necessary to be an Inland Empire real-estate nobody.

[Spokane Moderate]

Someone came to your blog to tell you to go away?

Right-wing logic boiled down to its essence.

[Gentlewoman]

WTF is going on with these people? Jeff G. (and his wingman Pablo, of course) and Josh T. went on another mad 'outing' expedition on Sadly, No! the other day, too.

S,N! now appears to be down again, btw. I hope it's not another DoS attack. Their servers have really been taking a beating, lately.

Is it a new wingnut holiday? 'Revisit and Re-ignite Old and Best-Forgotten Blogwar Week' or something?

I think this is another American tradition, like Super Bowl and Oscar Parties, in which I shall decline to participate.

Thers and NYMary, I am sorry that this trouble has come upon you again.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

My nose continues to itch.

Coincidentally -- not to mention luckily -- I reestablished my liberal credibility the day before this all exploded. Otherwise, I'd fear for all the collateral damage.

[flory]

scott -- I was amazed at that too. I mean, I barely care about this anymore. This was "news"?

For whatever reason, both Pasty and Tacky have needed to be noticed this last week.

I suspect they're losing their more rabid readership and without the mouth breathers, what are they? Nothing but really bad writing and even worse logic.

Problem is, for Pasty at least, it looks like it didn't work. Unless you've been deleting comments as soon as they're posted, I see little evidence of Pasty-trools coming to his defense here.

[Thers]

Is it even worth pointing out to Brian that I have never brought this up, and that in this instance it's very clear that it was other people who did?

I doubt it, somehow.

[Bas-O-Matic]

It is amazing just how much work I could put in to not studying for the Bar.

[The Editors]

People generally don't pay me lots of money for life advice, but if you gave me a lot of money and asked me for life advice, I would tell you this:

Don't spend time on crazy people. And when I say "crazy people", it's my way of not saying "Jeff Goldstein".

When I follow this advice of mine, I'm generally glad I did.

[marc page]

This is just too good. At this moment, after shredding his keyboard for two days, Mr. G is impatiently waiting for "Thers" et al. to show up on one of his comment threads, and all he's got for all his effort is the notorious GeorgeMarioNitrini111 (of the O.J.Simpson Case, of course.)

Protein Wisdom is now a parody site written by SadlyNo.

[charley]

Nice try, though. Say good night, Gracie.

i think this the best advice.

i used to love check'n PW out. i like my wingnuttery condensed. but too much, is too much.

these days, michelle malkin is just right.

[Fledermaus]

Is it even worth pointing out to Brian that I have never brought this up, and that in this instance it's very clear that it was other people who did?

Oh don't go throwing logic into this trainwreck.

[marc page]

[Don't ask me why I had nothing better to do -- (and if I had, I wouldn't have been able to do it any way) -- than to have spent the evening watching the Slow Children at Protein Wisdom; but the experience has confirmed my thought that it's time -- as if it wasn't before -- to stop 'engaging' these people. Left to their own devices, they will slowly sink and drown in their own bile.]

"Cut the image lines" (WmSB)

[I saved these two examples in support of the proposal:]

I don’t deny that “outing” Dr. Haggerty was a bad thing. I most strenuously deny that it was worse than the alternatives available to Jeff at the time.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke | permalink
on 02/25 at 09:58 PM

BTW, we should be celebrating. Thersites was Jeff’s FIRST CONFIRMED KILL!!! Pour the champagne, boys and girls, its party time!

Posted by Vercingetorix | permalink
on 02/25 at 10:05 PM

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22497/P200/

[marc page]

[This absolutely confirms that if you bother to try you would only end up talking to a lunatic:

First, this on PW:]

Incidentally—and this comes as a surprise to me—but I was over at Scott Kaufman’s acephalous site tonight, and who was posting there under his own name?

Go on. Guess.

Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 02/25 at 10:30 PM

[And what do we see at Acephalous? JG posting after a comment from someone called "Andrew Haggerty" with this little OT bit of baiting:]

Then, of course, there's the problem with people who misunderstand the theory they are using. I think Scalia, for instance -- though he considers himself a "textualist" (a new critic, almost) -- nevertheless practices intentionalism. He just doesn't recognize it as such.

I have a conversation with a steamed dumpling somewhere that spells this last out quite clearly.

Posted by: Jeff G | Sunday, 25 February 2007 at 07:53 PM

The only thing Mr. Goldstein fears is being ignored.

[Thers]

Marc -- I agree. And thanks for the quotes. Though I don't wanna know, y'know?

[anonymous]

I know. And why would anyone ?

At any rate, take care, and keep depriving them of the only thing that keeps them going: your attention.

[DB]

Reading The Valve on Goldstein was truly like walking through the looking glass--in contrast to the very real gross comments and threats, it was the height of absurdity to see JG's insanity legitimated and like, seriously debated polysyllabically. Way to go, The Valve.

It's kind of uncanny to see that my own "contributions" to that whole business survived. I propose a periodic day of purging where everyone deletes their archives, like the ancient custom of forgiving debt every seven years.

[pseudonymous in nc]

I propose a periodic day of purging where everyone deletes their archives, like the ancient custom of forgiving debt every seven years.

Bring on the Jeffy G Jubilee already.

[Scott Lemieux]

On a related note, T*citus seems to have cashiered yet another blog. Perhaps he was worried that people would keep clicking through the flickr link on the front page and see his super-secret pictures...

[Spokane Moderate]

On a related note, T*citus seems to have cashiered yet another blog. Perhaps he was worried that people would keep clicking through the flickr link on the front page and see his super-secret pictures...

Is there anyone on the internets with more identity issues than that guy? What will he reinvent himself as this time? What's left?

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Reading The Valve on Goldstein was truly like walking through the looking glass--in contrast to the very real gross comments and threats, it was the height of absurdity to see JG's insanity legitimated and like, seriously debated polysyllabically. Way to go, The Valve.

DB, people still take De Man seriously, even though he was a Nazi; point being, sometimes the thought is bigger and distinct from the person airing it. I may have erred in my attempts to raise the level of the discourse, but I won't apologize for taking serious ideas seriously. The fact, then, that Holbo had to make an analytic turn to find the distinction between Knapp and Michaels' and Jeff's use of them is telling in this regard; well, in the regard that I'm not an analytic philosopher, merely suspicious. Thing is, I've found when dealing with deconstructive-inspired arguments like Knapp and Michaels, that I often lack the philosophical chops required to make these distinctions.

All of which is only to say: I broached the subject because it intrigued me and because I'd seen the intentionalist position aligned with conservative politics before. I wasn't sure why, but this seemed as good a time as any to find out. Also, despite what some of their supporters have commented and emailed me -- in this respect, I understand exactly why each is disgusted by the other's commenters -- I find it not only possible but productive to discuss these matters with both Thers and Jeff.

[DB]

sometimes the thought is bigger and distinct from the person airing it.

Scott, that's precisely how I'm banking on my discursive immortality. If I can be as stupid and petulant as JG and still be taken seriously, then I shall enjoy a long afterlife. But the world would be better if that wasn't the case.

The difference between Paul De Man and Jeff Goldstein is...I mean come on, I can't believe I'm saying this. But the difference between De Man and Jeff Goldstein is that De Man was a smart guy who didn't run around academia monomaniacally policing (with the ever-present threat of a cock-slap) everything anyone said about him.

The fact, then, that Holbo had to make an analytic turn to find the distinction between Knapp and Michaels' and Jeff's use of them is telling in this regard

I'm trying to tell you, Jeff had no use for Knapp and Michaels until you brought it up (that would have been evident in his notes). Now he's claiming that he has been vindicated because he has famous academics--who are discussed on The Valve!--on his side. It's still preposterous.

And I mean, "Holbo had to make an analytic turn?" Oh yes, that was truly monumental. Kind of like the spatial turn in postmodernism, eh? Or the cultural turn in English? Holbo had to invent shit for JG to make sense. But hey, if you find it productive to take JG's serious ideas seriously, I guess I'll look forward to reading about it in the next Journal of Dithering Lunacy.

[marc page]

If all the talk of 'open debate' and 'the free exchange of ideas,' etc. etc. (and blah blah blah) was anything more than, at best, a pro forma genuflection to the Right Thing to Do, then I would say that talking ideas with men like Trevino and Goldstein is a fine way to spend an evening.

However, for men like these, all the gestures toward a reverence for 'the free & open marketplace of ideas' is a sham.

If a man enters into a conversation, clutching his thoughts like he's got the Holy Grail in hand, and believes, with the faith of the fanatic, that his position is the One, the Holy, and Absolute Truth, it won't matter what you say to him. He can't hear you.

Well, the little he does hear will only serve to make him crazier than he was when the conversation began.

[Thers]

Thing is, I've found when dealing with deconstructive-inspired arguments like Knapp and Michaels, that I often lack the philosophical chops required to make these distinctions.

Speaking strictly to this point, what I personally take from K & M is a largely ethical injunction not to neglect the author when practicing literary criticism. And that's a good thing. I just don't find that very helpful when it comes to describing linguistic exchanges, or literary production. In other words, looking at K&M apart from the argument with deconstructionism, it just doesn't move one very far forward.

[marc page]

For an illustration of my point (just above "Thers") you can review this:

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22497/P200/

in which Scott Eric Kaufman patiently taps on "Pablo's" skull with (at least for me) the expected result.

[pseudonymous in nc]

The difference between Paul De Man and Jeff Goldstein is...I mean come on, I can't believe I'm saying this.

Exactly. Perhaps this speaks to my academic biases, but when something reminds me of the turgid dreck I wrote for first-year undergraduate lit-theory, I have trouble taking it seriously. The returns on such discussions are at best meagre, in the same way that little is gained from discussing heroic couplets with one's cat, other than the realisation that the cat would like to be fed.

I don't mind that the internets unbar the gates, but I take objection to the notion that if something stinks of bullshit, we must clip a clothes-peg to our noses and root around for the substance. Someone will come along and do it better, soon enough.

(Perhaps that's why I never feel drawn back to the Valve. It's a real downer whenever I'm feeling enthusiastic about returning to the land of the litcriterati.)

[pseudonymous in nc]

For an illustration of my point

Please, just don't. You might find it masochistically fascinating, but I'm sure we really don't, and can live quite happily without links, quotations or any-bloody-thing else.

[marc page]

Now that you bring it up, I'm not sure I could find anyone but my cat who was willing to discuss heroic couplets.

[marc page]

Suit yourself, pseudonymous. Myself, I find it instructive to watch Mr. Kaufman in action (so to speak.) The more I read of his, and now, his real-time interaction with the 'apes & bears' of the medium, the more I wish I could have been among his students.

[romanwalls]

The single instance of commentary i posted at pastys place resulted in threats and vindictive nonsense... pasty is nothing...pasty and his ilk would fold and slither at the least threat to their imagined society...i wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire...

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

The more I read of his, and now, his real-time interaction with the 'apes & bears' of the medium, the more I wish I could have been among his students.

This is the nicest thing anyone's said to me in a long, long time. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I have something in my eye...