start over, sorta

kelley oudies at
Sun Nov 28 07:31:43 PST 1999

At 06:31 PM 11/28/1999 +1100, you wrote:
>Look Kelley, pour yourself a cuppa, sit back, and read what I said.

thank you for the patronzing concern

>Dunno what you're talking about and I don't want to find out. I'm only
>posting this to the list in case others think I'm a Kelley-hating dickhead
>- if dickhead I be, I'd like to be considered so for the right reasons.

heh. right about now i suspect that everyone thinks i am the asshole.

>Thanks for that, Kelley.

it's too bad that it's annoying to you to be told your position is obscurantist and totalitarian when you haven't once considered that what you did was call me a doctrinaire bully and totalitarian first. and it's too bad that you've refused to engage with habermas's critique of that kind of discoursing since that's why i brought it up. it's too bad that you can happily use habermas's critique of pomo. and science but not see how habermas's critique also applies to gadamer's arguments which can be obscurantist as he points out over and over.

as for the rest i'm just not bothering any more. i've completely read your responses and understand what your saying. i'm objecting to what i see as the contradiction between your use of habermasian theory and your refusal to subject your claims to discourse. that's all i complained about. it's that simple. you say you can't give examples and yet you do with maureen. i have to scratch my head and wonder why this could be so.

off to have a spot of tea and calm down my feminist ranting nerves which i'd note you don't get too worried about when it's in the service of defending the working class or criticizing butler.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list