I more or less agree. I used to have a more negative view, but I realized that what you get from Sokal et al is a fairly inaccurate and biased reading.
Actually, while I thought the Sokal hoax itself was brilliant, I'm in retrospect quite disappointed by his follow-up book. It reads like a bit of a lazy hatchet-job by someone trying to put together an "attack" piece without having read the stuff he's attacking, and certainly not trying to read it sympathetically.
