idbc,
:"ran away from that thread. You refused to answer direct questions."
  as stated somewhere around here i w;ked from what was increasingly perceived by me as being a contest between u and another poster about who could send yesterday;s coffee the further.
   met no criterion of mine.
:"I did not make up those definations."
never said u did.
:"If you do not want argue then what are you doing here?"
already stated..
:"Did you provide a solid definaton of what deconstructionism means? "
i have no obligation to.
you may be missing this, since it keeps recurring....i had thought that the tooey/roark exchange would be a place of common ground.
  u wanna "call me" deconstructionist? u do that.
maybe u;ll get a cookie.
  in the face of u offering 19th ad 20th century constructs of the term "metaphysics" i say let's go back to the words themslves, and their origins, and u say that is an exmaple of
:"refutes any attempts to produce a history,"
lol..feel free to keep doing such self-evident insoncistencies, if u want, or not.
:"through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted"
i am alll about there being a ultmate TRuth which must be accepted.
   what i :"challenge the tendency to centralize power " on the part of people claiming they have it.
and see? u were capable of seeing thru ur own eyes what piffle is.
  if that defintion works for u, then it does.
   face whatever you wish to.
u get to do that.
   if u iwsh that i look towards something ur seeing, gimme a reason why (see the 3 above) it serves me to do it, or be seen by me as playing some game of no interest to me.
   rod and i have been, from our seperate povs, for quite some time engaged in looking for some >>behaviourly<< useful ways of doing what i would call
"cleaning out the bad code" from the way some aggregates of humans interact.
   he and i approach the atter quite differently, which ;eads to fequent frustrations on his part, random ones on mine. but, as stated, #1..so. it is "worthit" to me.
  got something worth it?