His argument in the paper linked by hug above is: >>Many of the philosophical doctrines purveyed by postmodernists have been roundly refuted, yet people contin

His argument in the paper linked by hug above is: >>Many of the philosophical doctrines purveyed by postmodernists have been roundly refuted, yet people continue to be taken in by a set of dishonest devices used in proselytizing for postmodernism. It is getting tiring to repeat refutations of the same type for each new appearance of these various manoeuvres. For this reason, then, rather than yet another set of specific refutations, I offer you instead my little museum of their rhetorical manoeuvres, each exhibit neatly labelled, each label inscribed with a name,each name adding to a vocabulary of dismissal. I don't think he has really separated his examples from the philosophy they are criticizing. If I was to more broadly use his characterization of the phenomena, I could say that arguments about postmodernism are for the author the "bailey" and the A and B statment distinctions are the easy to defend and boring "motte". Of course, a statement that is a lie is intuitively wrong to most people!!! However, for me to say that is also an easy way for me to accuse you of being disingenuous, of masking falsehoods with truisms. I'd prefer to say I respect your perspective and the very human context surrounding it, and perhaps through imperfect discourse and the sharing of our "logos" we can come to a greater understanding of each other's positions. For me to dismiss something out of hand with an unexamined claim of fallacy is shutting the gate on our discussion.