I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. He certainly wrote in an amusing way, but I felt he was trying to get somewhere. Looking at the errors you illustrated:

> "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance,"

This is a cheap shot, and is mostly about style and wit, rather than substance. But is it possible that writing in a more obtuse manner is rewarded within academic circles, which I believe is the argument actually being made?

> "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want,"

Again, this is cheap, and I guess is also a shot at post-modernism in general. From the author's and your comments, I guess it should have been "Choose an accepted, face-value interpretation of the text."

> "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process"

But here I don't see your argument. From your other posting, Derrida then goes through the entire Platonic corpus, and quotes every time the word "pharmakon" certainly sounds formulaic. You also say I would say that deconstruction consists most often of a micrological reading (that is to say, a very close reading of the actual words of the text, not not just the broad concepts) which takes into account the (usually unconscious) assumptions that the author is working within. Most often, these assumptions, when taken to their logical conclusion lead to either a contradiction or an aporia, and the text often reflects this, unknowingly. So, a deconstructive reading often picks up on latent implications of the text itself.
That sounds formulaic, so it what sense is it a bad description of deconstruction?

If deconstruction is not a formula for lit crit, what is it? Deconstruction can't be the philosophy of Derrida. Well, it can be, but the obvious question is then, what is the philosophy of Derrida? I think this is the core issue. If the philosophy cannot be explained to an outsider, then to what extent is it a real thing, and to what extent is the collective hallucination of the in-group?

> don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is.

I should like to apologise and take back my comment that you were sneering. It was rude, and as it turns out, untrue. You genuinely believe the author is trying to make fun of the philosophy, but I don't think he is. He has read the books and thinks he can explain what deconstruction is. He takes a somewhat dim view of it to be sure, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it or that he wants to make fun of it.

> don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense.

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490304 for Chomsky's comments on this. (Basically, no-one has explained it to me yet, and I don't get it, and I'm damm smart, so it's either way over my head, and therefore very smart indeed, or bunk.)

> don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...)

I am in no way dismissive of philosophy and my axe is sharp enough. As I see it, in this case the insiders are dismissive of the outsiders -- "you have to read all these works to even understand what we are talking about, and we might still say you are not in the in-group and you are just trying to make fun of us." Given that, it is hardly surprising when outsiders are dismissive of you.