I look forward to seeing the error of my ways.
No, you don't.
I can certainly understand that it will take some time and deep thought to explain
No, you can't. Or won't. At this point you're pissed off and dug in and dishing clever snark. You're good at it, I'll give you that.
Not that it'll make any difference at this point, but where you ran amok was in misinterpreting a very limited statement I made early in the thread, which you have since blown all out of proportion in an attempt to prove, I dunno, something:
Yeah, there's nothing the least bit postmodern about his work
.... is consistent with
Um, nobody claimed Price has "no postmodernist aspects" whatsoever.
... and how both are consistent with Price's own sermon "What Language Shall I Borrow"
Robert Price quote mine
You keep flogging this. But here's the thing: Whatever the influences on Price himself, his work output -- writings, interviews, public debates -- bear none of the hallmarks of postmodernism. Zero. His output is the antithesis
of postmodernism. The fact that he employs certain postmodernist techniques
such as textual deconstruction in the pursuit of his craft is beside the fucking point
born in the postwar era uses at least some of the techniques of postmodernism, so called. (Okay, maybe except for fundies and biblical inerrantists and so forth. We're talking about serious scholars, here). But coming of age in the era of postmodernism (so called), and using some of the critical techniques common to the era, does not in & of itself make one a "postmodernist," at least not as the term is generally understood. For fuck's sake, Price's whole project is against
relativism and postmodernism. He is, if anything, a modernist
, an Enlightenment rationalist.
Since the original statement, and my response to it was made several days ago, I assume that you have just not had time to put together an adequately devastating response.
You assume wrong. I merely chose not to reply to your chest-pounding.
Frankly, I can't imagine what a convincing response would be.
Frankly, as dug in & pissed off as you appear to be, I doubt you'd be able to acknowledge any response, by anyone, no matter how well reasoned.
Pretending that you can, like pretending your second statement is consistent with your first, is, IMHO, intellectually dishonest.
Refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, you misinterpreted my statement, and then blew it way the fuck out of proportion in order to demonstrate... hell, I don't know, whatever it is you seem to want to demonstrate, here... well, I'd say that's intellectually dishonest, except that it seems your argument is driven not so much by intellect as by pique, or a need to maintain Hill Kingly status, or something.
But go ahead. Astonish me.
It's impossible show anything to one who already knows it it all.
See, acknowledging mistakes is not so bad.][/i]
INORITE? The irony in your sig line is rich indeed.