13 Responses to “Stacy’s Blogging at New Digs”

1. Tweets that mention Stacy’s Blogging at New Digs -- Topsy.com says:

   December 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm

   [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dan Collins, Jennifer*******. Jennifer******* said: RT @vermontaigne: Stacy’s Blogging at New Digs: Check them out here, and update your blogroll. http://bit.ly/7VY9l1 [...]

   Reply
2. Patrick says:

   December 20, 2009 at 6:54 pm

   I told the guy that I *might* be able to help with hosting. Depends on his weekly numbers. I haven’t heard anything at all.

   Eh, I tried.

   -Pat

   Reply
3. Ann R Kissed says:

   December 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm

   Comments off?

   What!!!!!

   How can I clank the noggins of Ghoster G and Pontius Patterico together if I, well, can’t!

   I take full credit for assisting in stirring those two r-wingnuts into battle. I did what I could with what I could, meaning I can’t post over at PW and I keep getting booted from Patterico’s dumb-ridden blog hole, hahahahha.

   Back on topic, who the eff cares about RSM? Ever noticed the only time that backwoods Confederacy-worshiping slug posts here it’s to link to his crappy blog. Tin cup shaking motherfucker!

   RSM posts over at alt.africanamerican.culture (or something like that, as I was reading it the other day). Yes, he waved the confederate flag in their faces over at alt.africanamerican.culture, giving ‘em the old what’s a matter, black people, don’t like this here flag, pppp. What a class act Stacy Dixie Shakes is.

   What a turd.

   Reply
   • Bob Reed says:

     December 20, 2009 at 10:02 pm

     Sure thor…whatever.

     Reply
     • Ann R Kissed says:

       December 21, 2009 at 1:19 am

       I read where the Navy is preferred by gay and homosexual enlistees.

       How long were you in the Navy again?

       Reply
       • General Tso's Chicken says:

         December 21, 2009 at 1:38 am

         The only military record thor’s ever had is “In the Navy” by The Village People.

         Reply
4. Dan Collins says:

   December 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm

   I guess some people just don’t know when to stop.

   Reply
   • Ann R Kissed says:

     December 20, 2009 at 8:52 pm

     Understated understatement, Big D.

     You had to have taken a class in Lit theory, Dan. Is there one answer to defining authorial intent or many? And would the differing theorists throughout time be guided by topical American political debates or genuine differing angles that soft science theory relies on? I find it disheartening to witness the masses don’t know arguments of logos and mimesis began with the freakin’ Greek philosophers. Jeff G. is similar to Plato in that he answered the question with the incorrect answer. Then again maybe Jeff simply sneered at Derrida’s Pharmakon without actually reading it. He’s so smart like that. Hahaha, hi Ghoster, chill your willies. Hahaha.

     Tahahaha.

     It’s hard to watch, granted. I quit even looking and for a time I thought it high comedy.

     Reply
5. Dan Collins says:

   December 20, 2009 at 9:01 pm

   There is no consequence without intention. The question is the same, essentially, as that regarding free will. You may regard it as a convenient fiction, or not. But meaningful human interaction is secured by that fiction.

   The question of where intention is to be found is a question of generosity. Theorists talk about texts manipulating people and about resistant reading. In the hands of a generous reader, such as Barthes, manhandling the text can produce beauty. Most theorists project their own ugliness onto texts, though, when they have the opportunity.

   Reply
   • Bob Reed says:

     December 20, 2009 at 9:48 pm

     Just what is meant by a “generous reader”?

     Reply
6. Dan Collins says:

   December 20, 2009 at 9:52 pm

   One who is willing to give credit for the most stimulating and beautiful possible interpretations of the author’s language to the author himself.

   Reply
   • Bob Reed says:

     December 20, 2009 at 9:59 pm

     Thanks Dan.

     Reply
   • Ann R Kissed says:

     December 21, 2009 at 1:20 am

     The Bible, ever interpreted it?

     Beautiful your interpretation must be.

     Reply

Subscribe without commenting
E-Mail: