First of don't strawman me. Don't write stuff I didn't write.

Second of all the attack on Post Modernism is what is wrong the entire thing. How can you attack Post Modernism for pointing out some obvious flaws in the way we approach frames of reference.

That's like blaming the compiler for giving you errors just because you would like what ever you write to be possible.

"As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return. "

This is the level of the writing. He don't understand deconstruction so he don't like it. That is what is wrong with most critique of postmodernism.

Further more it's not just french philosophers. Thomas Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyrabend are not exactly french.

All he do is showing how ignorant he is on what he speaks. But that do expalain the level of his other writing.