(Note: This post was originally published back in May 2006) ****** To this point, I’ve been kind to Thersites, whose flabby attempts at engaging my intentionalist arguments have been both lazy and, quite honestly, embarrassing. In fact, I’ve treated those who’ve come over from his site seriously, and attempted to answer their questions, because it seems at least they are interested in having a substantive discussion on these issues. Which,

Blah blah right-wing Rumsfeld warmonger chickenhawk evil Bushies Wolwowitz and his neocon cabal for oiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah ignorant stupid bloodthirsty morons, the real axis of evil on a ranch in Crawford and blah blah blah no WMD he lied, Bushitler lied, people died died died tie-dyed peace peace peace down with the Zionists! peace peace Kyoto! they hate us they hate us they hate us and what can we do

It’s time to start talking language again, so I’ll begin by harkening back to the early days. This excerpt comes from a 2006 post in response to “Thersites,” in which the plump community college new historicist decided he’d tackle what he referred to as the “standard simplification” of intentionalism. My response should refresh some basic insights into our relationship with signs and signifiers. ***** update:  Thersites replies, first by [contemporaneously]