Your point being what? That I should ignore false accusations, such as
the one that claimed that no one ever mentioned Pound psychoanalyzing
Eliot, as if I had hallucinated it?
Sent from my iPod
On May 7, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> Diana Manister wrote:
>> Ken apparently you missed Rick's post in which he said he found the
>> notion of Pound psychoanalyzing Eliot amusing. He wrote that in
>> response to my claim that Pound took TWL on its own terms as the
>> expression of a dissociated personality and did not try to have
>> Eliot "unify" it.
>> That's what Rick wrote, and prompting me to waste my time to
>> correct your false statement is irresponsible on your part.
> This is a discussion list. If it wastes your time, go somewhere
> else. In another post, you said it was my quip. What am I supposed
> to think? I actually had to read back through some of my posts to
> see if I said it, as it would be funny, after all, to think of EP
> psychoanalyzing TSE. Or anyone. La la, people will quip. Some of the
> wildest come from you. No one is evil by dint of disagreeing with
> you or by joking about some scenario a post of yours sets up. That's
> the way conversation goes. Relax. You're not in control.
> Ken A