User talk:DocFaustRoll

talk here:

Deleuze
I've removed the first part of your previous edit to the Zizek criticism since it's not a criticism, as far as I can tell. (Also, the quote was very unclear.) Zizek's book is, as usual, convoluted, and if you think my original rendering was wrong, that may have been due to my attempts to distill his point as much as possible. The article is about Deleuze, so I don't think we should bog it down in all the nuances of secondary interpretations of Deleuze. (Thus the Reception section is brutally brief, as the article is at maximum desirable length right now.) Of course, if you feel some important criticism of Zizek's has been left out, feel free to edit until we approach a mutually acceptable version. 271828182 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to defer to my judgment just because I've been writing the page for a few months -- I only came to the page in Dec 05 myself. I am always willing to change, if it makes the entry more clear or more accurate. If I get the chance, I'll reread Zizek's book and see if there's some better summary to be made. Thanks for the suggestions. 271828182 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I defer to your zeal for this page. You've made good contributions though not always wholly accurate from my perspective, good enough to not start an edit-war over Deleuze. DocFaustRoll 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

william irwin thompson
The info was from an email from and a conversation with WIT himself. Since these sources are not verifiable, I can't argue with the deletion. We can discuss your other changes on Talk:William_Irwin_Thompson. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

existant
I looked it up because I thought it might actually be a word I'd never heard before. It turns out it's not, but I think it should be. I haven't yet decided what it would mean. Zensufi 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, no it is not a word in usage. it is a conflation of existent and extant. thanks for catching that DocFaustRoll 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)