And we’ll see it again, too, if we don’t take a stand and regain control of language from the post-structural ideas that pretend to democratize it, but instead simply succeed in making meaning the province of those whose will to demand is stronger than those whose obligation it is to resist.

And when that happens?  This happens.  Only, y’know, for real.

I’m sorry, I know I can be a little thick sometimes, what with being someone that some anonymous coward warned you about (for what? For being able to understand the meanings of your sentences?), but I’m thinking that when you say that an action like Ilyka’s is one and the same with the march to dhimmitude, and link to a blog that illustrates such, well, I’m failing to see how you did not say what I said you did.

But on to the next subject: I think I have the rules of engagement down. You get to make slings, arrows, and any kind of insult or claim that you like. I don’t.

Okay, but I have to warn you, I’ve never been very good at following the rules.

But I am very good at scrapping. Shall we go a few rounds?

Incidentally, I never compared Ilyka to jihadists. I described a linguistic position that she shared with a guy who saw Allah in an ice cream cone graphic. And I explained why and how they shared that position.

Of course, anyone who is willing to ignore the bulk of my writing in order to call me sexist based on a throwaway post narrated through a persona is not likely to be interested in those kinds of distinctions. And judging by your reaction, you’re more interested in building a sisterhood coalition than you are in reacting honestly to what I wrote.

Sad, really. But then, I was warned about you.