>On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:31 PM, shag wrote:
>
>>aside from doug's comments about salmon... who else was sexist, etc.
>
>How is it sexist to say that I'd rather not be next to someone who
>smells like fish? You're not resurrecting that old canard about pussy,
>are you?
me? heh. no. although i did laugh when i thought about it. but i figured some asshole would get offended.
actually, it was just me being hasty while home on lunch. i didn't think it was sexist, just odd -- and hence under the umbrella "etc". i didn't understand what it had to do with anything other than your enjoyment of gossip.
my snark about bodies and affect was related. the other day, eric wrote the phrase, bodies and affect. and WDK asked him what he meant. i was laffing b/c WDK, someone being defended by eric's criticisms of you, hadn't actually understood eric's use of insider lingo more common to the likes of Long Sunday and Angela and the pomoistas.
the irony cracked me up. here's eric, bitching at you for engaging in classism and yet... "bodies and affect" .. which made me laff more when i remembered an uproar over a wiki guide to academic blogs which included some riff on the idea that inclusions on the wiki would be judged as to whether they were really academic. and the uproar was all about how pretentious and boundary-laden it all was. how dare they decide what could be considered academic and thereby decide who was included and who wouldn't be.
and there eric is, creating boundaries with his language, keeping people out because they don't understand the lingo.
and there eric is bitching at you.
and it's all fucking hilarious if you ask me.
and even more hilarious because, right now, i'm calling everyone, including me, a hypocrit, which was what sparked this ridiculous thread in the first place!
skol everyone. it's fucking friday.
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)