NP no facts only interpretations

[Swing Hammerswing]

>
> > The best
> > "jbor" has been able to do was, after spewing a few insults in 
>Bauerlein's
> > direction,
>
>Well, no, that's not true. But even if it was it would be nowhere near to
>the pitch and extent of Bauerlein's malicious stereotyping of academics in
>the article.

My stupid remarks are not as stupid as  Bauerlein's malicious stereotyping 
of academics. Is this your argumenat Man?
You can do better.



>
> > to assert that everybody knows the constructionist model is true,
> > thus confirming the argument that Bauerlein puts forth in his article  
>that
> > a sort of religious belief in the unassailable truth of the 
>constructionist
> > view prevents any real discussion of its validity.

The other guy, Mike, he said it best. He just did. Hey man have you
been around the  American academy? Shoot, this kid you are
engaging is a culture war pawn. Axiomatic Foucault, hey can you read French, 
maybe that will win this one, see Foucault is not worth all
that much in translation. But the biggy is below.



>
>Language, and thus "knowledge", are taught, learnt: they're not 
>instinctive.

Right. Teach yourself French and stick to Pynchon.


I learned how the government works to day Mommy. And how
to build a bomb. And how to say gay in French. Knowledge
is power.

What about Language, son? Did the learn you
how language is learnt and not instinctual?



No Mom.


Why not?

Cause it's not a constructed cultural artifact, government
it's language, mom.




>This is neither dogma nor catechism, and there is a solid body of research
>on the subject. If you've got an alternative perspective on what is a very
>simple proposition to grasp then by all means present it for discussion.
>
>best
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com