--On Saturday, September 01, 2001 6:38 PM +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> With things so calm, I'll spread around some accelerant to the forum.

  Yes indeed, Tom, you have. I think Pat may be correct regarding the 
instance of the Roseberg quote, but am not sure that it matters; Julius's 
book has been dissected enough that one more instance of his inability or 
unwillingness to harmonize his judgements with the facts does not add 
critical mass to an effort that has already been shown to be unflyable.

 The review that raised your question is of a piece with the book. It 
assumes right off the bat what it should demonstrate. Interestingly it 
begins with this quote taken from Eliot's dissertation:

". . . I should like to offer a tentative definition of Fact. A fact, I 
would submit, is a point of attention which has only one aspect."

The review is itself an illustration of this definition, as is Julius's 
misuse of Eliot's quote on Rosenberg. The review's single vision can be 
verified and consequently cannot be taken at face value for what Eliot 
called judgements, though the review's inadequate foundation for them does 
not inhibit the writer from making or at any rate attempting to make them.

 As my students in the joint would have expressed it, "Same old same old."

 Ken Armstrong