----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Eden
> To Ken:
> It was inevitable that you would chime in. It is interesting that I have
> written nasty remarks about either you or Peter; it is always your
> It is also interesting, first, that what I wrote was not a "strawman"
> argument; that it was not an attack on Christianity, let alone an
> remark; that it was in no way a "knee jerk" response; and that one may
> study both Eliot and religion without sharing whatever beliefs you have.
> you think I have not read and studied Eliot's religious views and the
> sources, you have no idea on what basis I wrote. If you think I do not
> a background in Christianity, you know even less about me than I would
> assume, i.e., nothing. I cannot assume responsibility for what you do not
> understand, however.
> To use words like "perverted," "obnoxious," even "unnatural" is to expose
> yourself and the reason this has nothing to do with the discussion of
> Eliot or religion. And if you think it is about some imagined
> your own, reread Gray's list of definitions and try to figure out how your
> language fits into any of them or any representation of Jesus.
> And to William Gray--I also did not say your argument was "trivial," only,
> as presented, tautological. I am still interested in how you get out of
> Date sent: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:04:21 -0400
> Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
> From: Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: OT: Eden
> To: [log in to unmask]
> At 08:25 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Enough, Peter. Why do you think your foolishly-written attacks on
> >Nancy are of any interest to others? I'm sick of you putting the rest of
> >us in the position of being a witness to your stupid and self-inflated
> >nastiness. It is because Will praised you that you are annoyed that
> >Nancy has joined the conversation?
> Sorry you see it that way. You could drop your last sentence above and
> as well start, "Enough, Nancy." Or "Enough, Carrol." "Joining the
> conversation" seems euphemistic for what Nancy and Carrol do. Carrol's
> ridiculous remark about Christianity and Nancy's perverted response,
> camouflaged as intellectual curiosity and as unnatural as anything you
> see dressed to pass for civil discourse, to Will Gray's polite reply to
> Carrol, simply repeats a pattern seen innumerable times on this list.
> at least does not hide the fact that he is not interested in TSE's poetry
> enough to really study or honestly represent it. That doesn't stop him
> chattering on about it (lengthy posts from someone with nothing to say, as
> it were), but at least he's announced that he is not to be taken
> and for that much he is to be commended.
> Out of all that dissonance, to pick Peter as a point of entry for
> scolding........I'm disappointed. Had the obnoxious remark been instead an
> equally unjudicious remark about some other religion, I suspect the
> outpouring would have been deafening. Do you think?
> At any rate, Eliot was a professing Christian, was he not? It seems to me
> that someone who proposes to study his poetry in view of that is proposing
> a potentially worthwhile study. Instead of the knee jerk response to the
> word "Christianity" (we all already know, don't we, that Eliot studied
> Eastern philosophies?) so often seen on this list, what harm could there
> be in actually studying the relationship? Why is the first response always
> to try to diminish, with flourishes of academic superiority, the worth of
> such a study or of Eliot's religion? I think I know, and I see nothing
> wrong with calling these attempts what they are.
> Ken A.