I think it's necessary to draw a distinction between actual
analysis of a work, and over-analysis.  There's only so much meaning
in any given text, and there are plenty of people more than willing
to create symbols and infuse a text with ideas that it was never
meant to contain.  The Professor in a philosophy class I took
a few years back told us that a lot of philosophy was "Mental
masturbation, it feels good, but doesn't accomplish much."  I have
nothing against "Literary Jargon," and textual analysis.  They are
valuable tools in understanding a work, particularly when the work is
from a time and culture different from our own, but what I see forum
members attacking is not legitimate discussion, but over-analytical
mental masturbation.  Some people just toss words and ideas around,
until the texts say what they want them to say.

        Matthew Miller