Re: The Empire Strikes Back??? (2 of 3)

• From: tgallows <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:35:27 -0000
• Message-ID: <att720+7d1p_at_...>

I don't think that message was really the style of my fellow Raj, who
generally writes much stronger satire.  Sorry.

On a qb-related note, stats for the ACF Fall tournament at Florida are
not yet up on the UF webpage, though we've had them for some time.  I
lost my copy of them in a hard drive crash, but if you'd like the
stats in an Excel file, you can request them from JD Hutchinson at
jdhutch dot ufl dot edu.

--Raj Dhuwalia, UF


--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, c_diddy666 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
>  My  big problems with the satire--- that the poster, Raj or not, 
> pulled off quite well---is   that one, while it is a gut-busting 
> sendup of a (stereo) typical student lefty loudmouth, it is a 
> pathetic travesty of the serious thought of the left wing of the 
> academy. I know that the poster is aware of that, but other enemies 
> of calling a "spade" anything but a "spade" seem to think otherwise. 
> I wonder if he has actually read any of the stuff seriously.
> 
> 
> Now, I'm hardly a Marxist or Leninist (though I do find it amusing 
> that this thoroughly discredited pair's  take on capitalism as 
> warlike and expansionist by nature seems to have more insight into 
> some of the facts of  post-Cold War America than many of the more 
> acceptible---'politically correct'?-- academics that we are supposed 
> to respect.)  But unlike some of the (really nice) guys from UF, I 
> find that many of the issues that cultural critics like guys like 
> Fanon, or Foucault  ( or Edward Said, or Samuel R. Delany...)  cackle 
> about in concatenated prose are actually quite  important. At least 
> to me.  So the work put into reading something like "Dhalgren" 
> or "Orientalism" is justified. Yeah these annoying Postmodern 
> critics  claim that their serious ideas are hard to articulate in Joe 
> Six-Pack's tongue. That might be BS, but Hegel, Spinoza,  and many 
> other canonically accepted thinkers that nobody  ridicules  can also 
> be rough sledding for me.  Their stuff seems also to contain some 
> valuable insights scattered among  many many prolix and/or 
> preposterous formulations.  And are they really harder to understand 
> than more politically conservative guys like Kant and Kierkegaard? Or 
> the typical UF-educated lawyer?