Well, here's an example of "names and quotes," from a Famous leftie who blurbed LBO's homepage:
"Any critic of the party line must meet very high standards. If
you're following the party line you don't have to document
anything; you can say anything you feel like. There are major
books, well reviewed, highly regarded, which are just an
expression of opinion -- there is nothing in them that you can
even trace to its source -- but that doesn't matter as long as
you're producing the party line. That's one of the privileges you
get for obedience. On the other, if you're critical of received
opinion, you have to document every phrase. He also later in the
review calls my writing "turgid." That's right, and part of the
reason it's turgid is because every three words I have to have a
footnote with big documentation explaining it. On the other hand,
if you're on the other side you can just pay attention to style,
because it doesn't matter what you say."
-- Noam Chomsky, "Political Discourse and the Propaganda System,"
1986
Forums often replicate these patterns. Don't be a "ridiculous fuckheaded bore", but you better offer names and quotes about "negligible pomo gibberish." [1]
BTW, I probably disagree with your view on "theory". You may find this a reasonable use of the term, for activist purposes:
What's a Theory?
Theories are collections of concepts about some real world area of
concern or interest which facilitate explaining, predicting, or
intervening. With theories we explain why and how things occur as
they do. We predict what is going to happen given the way things
are. And we choose ways of acting to make things turn out in some
way we desire.
Some theories are better for one or more of these purposes, worse
for others. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, for example,
explains very well, predicts barely at all and allows intervention
of only a quite limited sort. Theories of the solar system, based
on Newtonian gravity, not only explain but also allow us to
prediction example where a planet will be on some day and even
hour 50 years from now. Social theories generally explain,
predict, and permit intervention, all to a degree, not with
perfect confidence, but with enough to be much more useful than
just winging it, so to speak.
So what do we want for ourselves in the way of theory?
We want a theory that explains social events and trends because we
want to be able to situate ourselves … to explain to others … to
understand the way things are. And we want a theory that can
predict these same types of phenomena, because we want to be able
to have a notion of what's coming. And we want a theory, in
particular, that can help guide our actions to help us intervene
in what's happening, to affect it, and to work for outcomes that
we might desire. So it turns out we want a pretty powerful theory
for our domain, which is society and history.
-- http://www.zmag.org/zmi/zinstruc5.htm
[1] Try "gradual crescendo of nonsense," from Sokal and Bricmont's analysis of Baudrillard, quoted by Dawkins.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/philosophy/dawkins_impost.html
Tayssir