User talk:Hay4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The quote on justice in the first paragraph on undeconstructible is criticised by you and a replacement suggested referring to justice as not transcendent and not ideal, this, in my opinion would also be misleading, but in the other extreme. The quote that you derride, is necessary since the previous sentences say nothing of justice as being aporetic, nor do they distinguish it explicitly from law (though this might be assumed by a familiar). You say, "justice and law are explicitly separated by deconstruction." Here I see why you put it on my personal page: finally, light: so justice is "separated by deconstruction", a passive way for you to finally say that Derrida deconstructed justice, so I no longer have to repeat what the first half of what my points 3 and 4 on the talk page said 3 times, whatever about the sytax. --Lucas

I said justice is not a trascendent ideal, which is completely accurate.Hay4 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello to Hay from Maureen Flynn-Burhoe. I appreciated the elegant edit of the original article I submitted on "memory work." Since then I have been reading more about contributions made by feminists in Germany towards "memory work" who were very active in the 1980s. I would like to have a place where I can discuss their work in terms of adding another section to memory work. Is their work inclusive enough for a wiki world? Are you interested in such a discussion? If so, is there a forum for this through wiki? Thanks.

I don't know too much about memory work. I know a bit about what Benjamin and Agamben and Derrida are talking when they speak of messianic time and such, but I'm not familiar with a lot of what you're talking about. I'm sure you can add more sections to the original submission as long as it's not original research and it's sufficiently general and clear. As for general discussion regarding topics, I have no idea where that might occur. Hay4 22:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Steve Sailer

You have made an edit to Steve Sailer that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. Argyriou (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit "could" be regarded as defamatory, but it is not in fact defamation. Truth is an absolute to defense to charges of defamation and everything I added was true and sourced. Hay4 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your initial edit to the article stated that Sailer (whose name you seem to have trouble spelling right) had said something which he has not ever been on record as saying - it was rather what someone else has said about Sailer. Your subsequent edits have shown much sloppiness and are quite slanted, so I have no reason to believe that anything you add to that article is actually going to be useful. Argyriou (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Your initial edit to the article stated that Sailer ... had said something which he has not ever been on record as saying" LOL. Hilarious, tortured defense of Sailer. I'm loving it. The bottom line is that everything that was in the article after the first edit was in fact true and uncontroversial. If Sailer tried to sue over it they would laugh him out of the courtroom and it would never go trial. No lawyer would even take the case. I didn't try to replace the first edit because I couldn't find where Sailer had specifically said such racist things "on the record." What I added was a summarization of a belief that Sailer has NOT A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO SAILER. [In fact, what I added was someone else's summarization of the Sailer article found here: http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm I even added quotation marks and a reference to indicate that I wasn't using my own words.] Just admit you support Sailer's agenda and move on. By the way Argyriou, I think you're an idiot and I will erase anything you add to my discussion page from now on. Hay4 00:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)