Recently, Victor Reppert put up a post called "Joe Hinman turns Derrida on his head ". To that title, I responded with: "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?"
And Joe Hinman, being who and what he is, responded with:
Eric Sotnack who teaches Philosophy at Akron helped me structure the argument, So a professional philosopher who is an atheist thinks it's valid.
show me a grammatical error I'e committed. do you even know the grammar, spelling, and punctuation>?
Ignoring the first paragraph, which naturally had nothing to do with what I said, I responded with: "^ I leave it to Gentle Reader to supply his own guffaws."
This was too much for that professional "nice" guy, Victor Reppert (*), who decided to jump in with:
Ilion, you are out of bounds here. However you may disagree with him, especially on politics, we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing. My doctoral dissertation advisor, Hugh Chandler, was the same way.
I responded with:
I am never "out of bounds"; I say the truth that you do not wish said. Said or unsaid, reality remain what it is -- "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?".
It seems that you have as little respect for this particular prancing fool as I do, albeit differently grounded (**).
If he is dyslexic, then that is *his* problem, and it is up to him to take the care that what he posts isn't so scrambled that no one else has the faintest clue as to what he means.
And, in any event, his underlying problem isn't dyslexia, it's illogic ... and vicious leftism.
By the way, my immediate supervisor is dyslexic ... and he doesn't need anyone to run interference for him when we can't make heads nor tails of what he means to communicate to us.
Now, the thing is, I mostly ignore Joe Hinman, precisely because he is an irrational fool; but given Reppert's title, it was just too much temptation to resist my initial quip. I mean, Derrida (***)!
And the other thing is, Joe Hinman not only seems to be unable to ignore me, but he also seems to have a hard time resisting attacking me. This is what Reppert is alluding to with "However you may disagree with him, especially on politics"; you know, that old "even-handedness" for which "even-handed" people are so noted -- if Hinman says the most outrageous lies about me, that's just a difference of opinion, but if I laugh about Hinman's grammar-on-its-head disputation of my statement that he regularly turns grammar on its head, well, that's "out of bounds".
AND, actually, it's not true that "we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing". "All" includes me, doesn't it? I didn't know this claim about him.
And knowing it, I don't care.
(*) Who will *never* pipe up with the smallest of trillings when Joe Hinman (or any other leftist, or 'atheist') makes the most outrageous, and easily seen to be false, assertions about me or about any other anti-leftist.
(**) I think he's an adult and a moral agent who chooses to be a fool; Reppert apparently thinks he's a child below "the age of accountability" who must be shielded from the consequences of his own choices.
(***) Turning logic and language on their heads was Derrida's specialty and his claim to fame.