[parsifal]

"What you said, whatever that is."

Absolutely brilliant reposte! Because whatever any of us say is whatever we said. Interpersonal communication is like a fiber optic cable that carries many signals. We concentrate on the vibratory sonic pressure wave portion of the signal and eschew all other non-vibratory meaning signals. The bytes of communication have to be reprocessed and reassembled in a mutually acceptable matrix of meaning paradigms. So let me respond to you by saying YES--What you said, whatever it is--in the here and now. parsy the sympatico.

[Nick Danger]

Spoken in true sequipedalian tergiversation! The Hegelian dynamic of your multi-dimensional response, while pregnant with nascent undertones of swirling higher meaning, leaves me gasping for what to say next, save this monosyllabic prolation: ouch.

[Billthedrill]

I don't think so at all. If one examines textual theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept realism or conclude that narrativity is capable of intentionality. An abundance of discourses concerning the role of the writer as participant exist. The subject is interpolated into a neodeconstructivist sublimation that includes consciousness as a paradox. But if textual theory holds, we have to choose between dialectic capitalism and poststructural cultural theory.

The same could be said, of course, about the designated hitter rule.