> So, there is no denying ontology, and denying it rhetorically makes your
> account of ontology merely implicit.
Who has denied it? I think you have clearly missed the sense in which Derrida asks the question -- Why ontology? -- of Negri, which is where this question appeared in a previous post of mine as a postscript on _Ghostly Demarcations_. Neither Derrida nor Negri _deny_ ontology.
But I doubt that any of that makes any difference to you. You've already clearly indicated in the thread on 'responsibility' that you think discussion should be propagandistic or not be had at all. What is implicit here is not only the assumption that people are stupid (as Justin has already noted), but that you never conduct a debate with anything other than a fabrication of your own polemical neediness.
Angela