Terry, a literalist can make anyone look like a fool. If you were to
use the expression "it's nothing" would you really expect anyone to
explain to you how absolute nothing is not possible?
I was portrayed as half of a comedy team when I was posting my
comments about Eliot. According to you that's appropriate, but a snide
comeback is not.
Your attempt to deflect the charge of misogyny by accusing me of
hiding my character flaws behind it is a well-known technique of
reversal. You could say that whenever the term is used, and my guess
is that you do.
When you preach at a male on the list I'll reconsider my opinion of you.
Sent from my iPod
On Apr 3, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Terry Traynor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >The quote Peter posted is Jesuitical in it's convolutions however.
> >knew how thinking can inhibit ordinary satisfactions or he would
> not have
> >been capable of making Prufrock so convincing.
> I quite agree that the passage Peter quoted is convoluted, and that
> in the character of Prufrock, Eliot demonstrates how thinking can
> inhibit ordinary satisfactions. Gerontion is another such character.
> >Nitpicking my use of a common expression is silly.
> You had a good point to make. You weakened it with a sloppy use of
> >Are you going to preach at Ken now
> Ken is not habitually sarcastic. You are. I finally decided to say
> something about it.
> >or do you believe only women are sarcastic?
> More either/or thinking. Either I chastise Ken or I believe that
> only women are sarcastic. Instead of recognizing that you, an
> individual, engage in repeated sarcasm on this list, you deflect the
> criticism away as an instance of gender bias. How much credibility
> do you think valid complaints about gender bias will have if the
> accusation is slung around so casually?