<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"> <DIV>My original point is that contemporary rhetorical theory has moved far beyond the cursory elements of the rhetorical situation Yoshie cited originally.  As someone who works both in academia and in the non-academic community, I certainly regret that anyone thought I was speaking excessive "academese."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>By "dualism" I meant that postmodernists often criticize people who attempt to pin down the "truth" behind the "representation."  Wander says that sometimes that distinction is necessary even if it's imperfect.  I didn't realize I was excluding anyone.  Sorry.  Most of the writing on this list indicates that you are all much more intelligent than I am.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Beyond that, I'm not gonna get into some theoretical-territorial pissing match.  I'll just encourage anyone interested in what's going on in contemporary rhetorical theory to read Wander's article and the numerous responses to it...Cloud's 1998 book _Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics_, and James Aune's _The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness_...along with anything by Brian McGee, Lawrence Grossberg, and a few others I'd be happy to provide cites for.  I think you'll find a lot of convergence between decent rhetorical criticism and other analysis of ideology.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'm a little troubled by the snippiness of so many people on this list.  I posted something in an attempt to help people out and once again, rather than receiving an invitational suggestion that I make my words more accessible, I got spanked for it.  And not even in an enjoyable way.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>stannard</DIV></BODY></HTML>