> Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? I think so? :) Read it again – You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the

> Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? I think so? :) Read it again – You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the humanities--even the great ones--but most people have enough sense not to. (Emphasis mine.) They are saying that there are trivial and non-trivial works in the humanities. Some non-trivial works are great works. You could nitpick those non-trivial works--even the great ones-- but you'd be wrong to because while you're busy at that you're missing the wood for the trees. To me it sounds like they've read quite a few texts from the humanities, just not Foucault.