>my complaint about a lot of post modernism is that it is just
>Nietzschean balderdash dressed up in complex language.
I agree, but there's bullshit writing of all kinds. If you throw out a generalized 'postmodernism' do you include Frederic Jameson or David Harvey? And how do you respond to Terry Eagleton, who criticizes what he calls 'the illusions of postmodernism' but makes a big effort to understand the attraction? Is he just wasting his time?
>I am at a loss to understand your reference to my remarks on the
>'materiality of homosexuality'. If you care to enlarge I will reply.
I only wanted to point out that you were holding off-the-cuff comments made at a conference up to critical scrutiny and that your own quickly written note is at least as spongy as anything Brown said.