Nancy Gish wrote:
> First, as I said, Carrol never characterized Eliot as having a common
> mind. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. So that is not at issue.
> Second, there is no serious response to name-calling and re-writing
> what others say. "Shadow boxing" is simply a personal attack: it does
> not respond to anything I said or Carrol said. What you "suspect" comes
> from no one at all.
> I think it is pointless to engage in personal sniping.
> >>> [log in to unmask] 08/30/05 8:43 PM >>>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
> >"Great mind" is an even more nebulous and I think trivial concept.
> I disagreed with your characterisation of Eliot's having a common mind.
I didn't say that. I will add now that it really doesn't make any
difference what kind of a "mind" TSE or Einstein or Nelson Eddy or or
Clara Bow had. They're all dead and can't appreciate the compliment (if
it is a compliment). The topic of whether or not Q has a "great maind"
or not is simply boring. Why do you want to discuss what kind of a mind
Eliot (or Einstein) had?
> I tried to get you to indicate what you thought was a great mind.
I think "great mind" is a phrase that does not indicate anything of
interest to discuss. Why do you think we should think about it?