I've been on the Eliot list since 1997, and I've *never* known Nancy to be
either offensive or abusive. Sometimes she has strong opinions on this or
that Eliot poem, or Eliot's life in general, but she has done the research
to back up her points. It's the same way when she comments on culture in
general, you may not agree with her but she always has a valid, well
I did get a chuckle out of the phrase "academic language" however. Where
else would anyone expect "academic language" on an e-mail list *but* on one
dedicated to the works of TS Eliot? Maybe on a list for the Dead Sea
Scrolls, or one arguing whether Edward de Vere is or isn't Shakespeare, but
that's that only places that I can think of where "academic language" would
possibly be even more prevalent.
From: Michelle Hadden [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Some language is beyond the pale
nancy, i for one hope that you are.
i find nothing here offensive other
than your reaction, and you should
be the first to talk. the majority
of your posts to this list are
incredibly abusive, even if they
are couched in pretty, academic
--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is the most offensive message ever posted on this
> list in the time I have been on it. Have you no idea
> what you are saying? Do you think that ludicrous icon
> masks or mitigates it?
> I hope I am not the only one who finds this astonishingly
> Date sent: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:46:37 -0800
> Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
> <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Peter Montgomery
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Watch out for the economy
> To: [log in to unmask]
> From: John Ryskamp
> You should worry less about differences between parties
> and start worrying that your economy, like the American,
> is about to fall apart. Here in California the State
> budget deficit is publicly stated to be $21 billion. But
> do you know what the whisper number is? SIXTY billion,
> and growing rapidly. Come about February you will see
> how bad it really is. I suppose a lot of people on this
> thread are tenured professors--well, these are the folks
> they're talking about cutting here, even at prestigious
> Berkeley. You shouldn't get caught unaware by this--you're
> never really told how bad it is going to get, you have
> to ferret it out of people who have reason to know how
> revenues and sales are really doing: California is a
> disaster area, and if California sinks, America drowns
> (and Britain never had a chance). Start agitating for
> rights that will keep you in your housing regardless
> of what happens to the economic situation or your own
> economic situation. Enuf bout Eliot--aux armes!
> ================================================ Yes
> Mark. And what do you do for an encore? Put on black
> face paint with white lips, and roll around on your
> >From: INGELBIEN RAPHAEL <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
> <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: OT British politics (was Thatcher)
> >Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:45:47 +0100
> >From Nancy:
> > > I thought it very odd to see Labour called
> > > centrist and Lib-Dem not (...) So I am still
> > > puzzled at the way you (Kate) define the
> > > parties.
> >When one looks at issues like public services,
> >it's hard to tell who is now left of centre. In
> >some respects, New Labour is more right-wing than
> >the Lib Dems. Also, did you note Charles Kennedy's
> >address to the TUC conference this year?
> >From Kate:
> > > Labour is almost completely centrist, which is
> > > why they won so decisively in the last couple
> > > of elections
> >It looks decisive if you consider their majority
> >in the Commons. It looks definitely less decisive
> >if you consider the number of votes cast for
> >Labour. Blair never got as many votes as John
> >Major in 1992 - or as Thatcher in the eighties.
> >In some constituencies (often held by Labour), the
> >turn-out at the last general election was a joke
> >(less than 40%). The overall turnout was slightly
> >over 60% - an all-time low. How solid is popular
> >support for Blair, really?
> > > rather, Labour was now the spokesperson for all
> > > of the middle class and the best interests of
> > > Britain.
> >Is there any dictionary that defines 'middle class'
> >as a synonym of 'Britain' ?
> > > He made it clear that improving their Health
> > > Service and Educational system, and the
> > > interests of the nation as a whole, was more
> > > important than union interests
> >That's presumably why Britain is now exporting
> >patients to continental hospitals. That's
> >presumably why teacher shortages are growing at
> >the same rate as educational red tape. That's
> >presumably why the British university system is
> >heading for meltdown.
> > > The Lib-Dems are now clearly to the left of
> > > many of Blair and Labour's positions, the
> > > issue of Europe > and how intimate Britain
> > > should be in their alliance being prominent
> > > among the issues.
> >I wonder where that leaves the Europhile Tories
> >who want to sign up to the single currency. Are
> >they left-wing? The Europhobia of the Tory
> >leadership certainly didn't help the party much
> >at the last two elections.
> >I'm sure Nancy could also point out that there
> >are parts of Britain where the Euro is popular
> >- Scotland, for instance. Though I suspect that
> >that popularity is sometimes inspired by a
> >rejection of English attitudes, more than by a
> >real grasp of what is at stake in the single
> >[log in to unmask]