>I thought this list was meant to be an open forum for people in the
>field. Such a post from the list's administrator suggests that this is
>not quite the case. How can this be an open forum when the people
>running the list show open contempt for some of the members by
>subjecting them to mockery rather than engaging with them

Assuming this response was not intended as satire in the spirit of the
original, it's worth pointing out that:

(1)  The post reveals nothing about the administrator/poster's feelings or
opinion about philosophy, theory or certain forms of criticism.  Many
people enjoy humor directed at subjects they hold dear or even at
themselves.  (I can think of two Onion pieces that could almost have been
written exactly about me but that still were funny.)  It's not hard to
imagine the piece being equally amusing to those who think "theory" is just
the bee's knees as to those who think it's a blight upon our society.

(2)  Satire can certainly be as intellectually engaged as any
deconstruction text.  That the satirist has shifted the rules and field of
debate only makes her a smart strategist, not an unengaged one.

(3)  If deconstruction is so delicate that this post could damage it then
perhaps it's something we would be well rid of.

For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: