Nancy Gish wrote:
> Unless you can define "great" in some way credible to most readers, and
> then show how Stevens fits it more and better than anyone else (not
> theoretically possible, but never mind), what is the function of repeatedly
> pronouncing his superiority? Is there any way to make such a statement
> anything but meaningless?
In a conversation, tossed off once or twice, it can sometimes trigger
interesting things -- but no, it has no meaning, nor can it be given any
meaning. Repeating it as a serious proposition is like replacing all the
words in a text with exclamation marks.