(last post on this subject, but sufficiently meta- to slap up here, as I'm thinking about these issues for that other thing)
To reiterate what I wrote in response to Eileen Joy's comment, what bothers me about Craig's serial dishonesty is that it restricts what I can write. Knowing that anything I write about Foucault will be followed by another gross misrepresentation decreases the odds I'll write much about Foucault. Craig knows this, so he responds to everything I write about Foucault with a gross misrepresentation of what I said and imputes devious intentions as to why I said it. He mines for quotations with all the integrity of Hollywood publicist, yanking words with abandon and eliding with confidence: "Everyone ... should see ... this ... unbelievable piece of ... film!"
In short, Craig wants to police the discourse. If you desire a conversation about Foucault, you must talk about Foucault like he wants to talk about Foucault; if you refuse to do so, be prepared to have your work grossly mischaracterized in the service of his ego. That he resorts to misrepresentation to maintain this fiction is a nicety lost upon him. (That the "interlopers" have no pretension of expertise is too.) He will defend the illusion of his expertise at all costs ... and the possibility of debate will die on the table. Because when the barrier of entry is that high, the sane will refuse to scale; and those who choose to will lose a little of their sanity.
Still, all that self-congratulation must be fun. I think I'm going to try to "do the Craig." Regular searches for "Silas Weir Mitchell," "'Jack London' and 'atavism'" and "'evolutionary theory' and 'literary'" should cover it for now. Anything pops up, I'll write a scathing indictment in which I "imply" the author's unfit to speak upon these matters with many "subtle" words and "clever" phrases. I should be able to "police the discourse," I mean, "corner the market," I mean, "Craig" these topics in three weeks flat. Here's hoping!