[lbo-talk] Reversing common wisdom on pornography

[info at pulpculture.org]

since one of these asshole radfems has been basically stalking me lately 
and has threatened to out me -- digging up personal information that is 
very hard to locate -- I'd appreciate it if y'all would respect my wishes 
as to my name.

It is Bitch, Bitch | Lab, BL, pulpculture, pulp, cunt, whore, whatever. OK?

And Jordan? Please get rid of CC's post form the archive if possible.

As for the rest, what are you talking about? Nothing I said in my post to 
which Wendy replied was ironic. It was a description of the way "they" 
think, a word I used frequently enough to indicate that it wasn't my 
thinking, and with the referent to "they" being quite clear: radfems.

At 02:22 PM 8/27/2006, Carrol Cox wrote:


>info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> >
> > You might want to read the post again. Seriously.
>
>Mixing irony with exposition often misfires. Since there is no
>syntactical or lexical marker for irony,  some writers have recently
>quite seriously questioned whether it even exists or not. Recognition of
>irony _always_ depends on something akin to mind-reading: i.e. one must
>know in advance the principles that the writer repudiates.  Remember
>what happened to Defoe?
>
>Carrol

Bitch | Lab
http://blog.pulpculture.org