Ed quoted David Horowitz at length. I remarked on your manners and Ed's quote, not the contents of the article.

Rave on, sir.

Raoul said:

Yes, indeed, Jacques Derrida would have had a field day with mr Nelson!

[italics mine]

The italicized phrase is in the present tense, perfect aspect, past conditional mood. The present tense is indicated by the auxiliary verb "have"; the perfect aspect (a completed action) by the past participle "had"; and the past conditional mood by the past conditional modal "would". The verb's mood sends the whole action into a fictional, speculative past. It describes an action that might have occurred in the past if certain conditions had been met, which they weren't. The conditional mood is speculative, in whatever tense it occurs. This action is placed in the past by its modal, which speculates about the past.

You said:

So, are you suggesting that a dead man is going is to have field day discussing the title of ed's post?

[italics and strikeout mine]

The italicized phrase, minus the redundant "is", is in the present tense, progressive aspect, conditional mood. The present tense is indicated by the verb "is". The progressive aspect (an action "in progress") is indicated by the present participle, "going", followed by the infinitive that describes the type of action that will be occurring. The conditional mood lacks a conditional modal, but the structure itself is speculative, a progressive action described in the present that hasn't occurred yet.

Raoul's sentence doesn't suggest that a dead man is going to do anything, but that he might have done a specific something before he died, had certain conditions, such as Derrida meeting and talking to Ed about politics, existed. If Derrida had met Ed, the sentence would lose its conditional mood and become a simple statement describing a past event, i.e., "Jacques Derrida had a field day. . ."

If you knew how to read English, you would have understood that.

I had no interest in discussing a burlesque of M. Derrida's work, though I find it interesting that a group who claims to hate the French would attempt to use the work of a French intellectual to make a point for them. Especially after he's dead and couldn't dish it back to them even if he may have wanted to.

I take exception when a rude individual who doesn't understand how to read his own language (that would be you) insults my friend, who writes it very well.

If you wish to talk about literary analysis, it would help if you would master grammatical expression first. Man needed to tame fire before he could learn to cook.

Class Notes for Grammar, Usage, and Style