While the über-sexy, Lacan-reading Vents battled on-stage @ The Corner (cheers Vents!), Collingwood battled against dogs @ Etihad, to emerge victorious a short time later…
COLLINGWOOD 7.2 11.5 16.7 17.9 (111)
W BULLDOGS 3.4 6.6 10.9 16.14 (110)
Gleeson on Collingwood:
Pies win an epic battle
Michael Gleeson
The Age
July 11, 2009
THIS was an epic. This was a season-defining game. Win or lose, both teams came out of this match emboldened, but Collingwood came out the victor, albeit by the narrowest of margins.
The Magpies have declared themselves serious contenders, with their one-point win over the Western Bulldogs helping entrench them in the top four but more importantly defeating a top-eight side for the second successive week. They have won seven games in a row, a record under Mick Malthouse, and have defeated another top-four side with a finals-type effort…
Chomsky on Lacan:
Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I’ve met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible — he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I’ve discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven’t met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones — the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I’ve dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish. When I proceed as I do in other areas where I do not understand, I run into the problems mentioned in connection with (1) and (2) above. So that’s who I’m referring to, and why I don’t proceed very far. I can list a lot more names if it’s not obvious.
