Print

Print


Thanks so much for proving my point.






>From: deleuze oedipus rimbaud <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: HEy Listen
>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:31:56 -0500
>
>
>Dear Nancy, Like my Name Sake Rimbaud I believe in Women totally. Ps to the
>idiot who wrote me a private email telling me i ought to take some remedial
>course in english i say eat shit. there is what i think of yer english
>grammar u Bimbo.
>as for the rest of this I express the free epistolary episteme of desire
>via email
>  Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:If it is directed to a woman, it
>is called "ad feminem." I merely gave the
>etymology.
>
>After being derided on this list for being a feminist and Women's Studies
>Professor, I find this amusing.
>Nancy
>
>
>Date sent: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:26:33 -0500
>Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
>From: deleuze oedipus rimbaud
>Subject: Re: 800 American professors and one student are wrong again
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>You are like a teacher, right, cause you sound like a real sexist.
>cause it s not just like men, ok, its womyn too.
>Nancy Gish wrote:Ad hominem means "to
>the man" and
>refers to critiquing the speaker
>rather than the argument. To use the language you did about the
>members of the list is thus "ad hominem."
>
>Latin is very useful. "Diatribe" and "invective" come from the Latin, as
>do many of the words in your original diatribe. In fact, if we stuck with
>Anglo- Saxon, most of our intellectual debate would be hard-put for
>language given the history of English after 1066.
>
>It is true that some of the recent posts are extremely political, but in
>an intellectual community, it is very hard to police topics. The members
>of this list are such a community and many find it a place to discuss,
>with people they respect, other things than Eliot. I don't see why any
>individual member should use ad hominem arguments on that account,
>whether
>they agree or not with the posts. To demand that only directly related
>material be allowed or used is a "personal consideration." Some of the
>most interesting Eliot discussions--from my perspective--have come out of
>previous unrelated posts. It is a continuum.
>
>"How horrible of me. . . etc." is precisely the personalizing I objected
>to; it shifts the discussion from ideas to you.
>
>"Self-serving" and "ideologically driven" are ad hominem by definition and
>not by interpretation since they address persons and not the content of
>speech.
>
>Who are you or any member of the list to define "what a forum is fit for"?
>The forum, presumably, makes that choice collectively. It is not an issue
>of knowledge but of a shared discussion. We are not an official body with
>a mission statement and a set task.
>
>"Outside any such place or set of ideologies" DEFINES "superior
>intellectual position." It is based in much current theory of position and
>discourse in contrast with assumptions of neutral truths that transcend
>location.
>
>I found nothing threatening about what you said. I found it rude,
>especially to Steve, whose post you mocked with "rah rah rah." He feels
>deeply and for serious reasons, and you treated that as something to
>trivialize. That is why I responded.
>
>You are right that my last remark was sardonic and ad hominem. It was a
>reaction to what I still feel was inappropriate language directed at
>deeply felt commentary. There is no reason to apologize to me at all as it
>was not my post you mocked and it was not to me you directed your satire.
>I was sardonic because you made such a point about Latinate language while
>using so many Latinate terms but mixing them with a style--affected by
>Pound, Cummings, and others--of elaborate casualness.
>
>I am answering all this with genuinely serious reasons since you seemed to
>be asking for that rather than exclusively leaping back into personal
>invective. I appreciate that and wish it would become a more common kind
>of debate.
>
>Merry Christmas,
>Nancy
>
>
>
>
>Date sent: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 07:50:53 -0800
>Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
>From: "Harm Tron v2.0b2r7"
>Subject: Re: 800 American professors and one student are wrong again
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
> >From: Nancy Gish
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: 800 American professors and one student are wrong again
> >Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:24:31 -0500
> >
> >Do you not see that YOUR post is ad hominem, vituperative, and in praise
> >of ignorance (uninterest in any political position is just that)?
>
>according to the american heritageŽ dictionary of the english language,
>fourth edition, ad hominem means "appealing to personal considerations
>rather than to logic or reason."
>
>the objection i raised has to do with what i consider to be the self-
>defeating nature of a community which is supposed to "foster & encourage
>appreciation, study and DEBATE of tse" but instead diverges into chest-
>pounding political diatribes sprinkled with latinate invectives.
>
>now, i simply dont see anything ad hominem about the contradiction i was
>pointing out. its perfectly logical to observe that time spent on
>ideological discourse is time not spent on tse. one would expect these
>arguments to at least invoke his specter (plenty has been said & written
>of him & anti-semitism, no?) but that is not the case.
>
>what "personal considerations" am i appealing to, prof. gish? the
>"personal consideration" of expecting tse-related material on a tse
>mailing list?
>
>how horrible of me to entertain such outlandish expectation...
>
>my three qualifiers, (a), b) & c), are ad hominems only to the extent to
>which the reader interprets them as such. i went on to mention that i
>affiliate myself with an institution which indulges in all three, havent
>i? i personally find nothing objectionable about self serving,
>ideologically driven descants in and of themselves; i read a fair amount
>of editorials & quite enjoy the fray; what bothers me is the fact that
>some if not a whole heap of tse list "contributors" pervert this medium to
>serve whatever cause their own personal politics dictate. this isnt an
>editorial page, & even if it were, it ought to at least MENTION the
>literature.
>
>knowing what forum is fit for what discourse is not "ignorance," prof.
>gish. this has nothing to do with "uninterest in any political position" &
>everything to do with awareness of what is a cathedra, what is a lectern
>and what is a pulpit. im sure id find your and many others' "political
>position[s]" fascinating, as long as they are articulated in the proper
>context.
>
> >That your assumption of a superior intellectual position outside any such
> >place or set of ideologies is both self-serving and absurd--and itself
> >ideologically driven?
>
>pardon. for an english professor, your utter lack of textual reference is
>most disturbing. please quote what part of my original reply implies "a
>superior intellectual position."
>
> >And that the mockery of academic communities (of which you are a member)
> >is mockery of over a thousand years of accumulated knowledge and
> >transmission of ideas, and that it is a shameless (and commonplace)
> >self-aggrandizement appealing to anti-intellectualism--quite apart from
> >being an undemonstrable sweeping generalization?
>
>then it must be self mockery. i dont understand how i can be "appealing to
>anti-intellectualism" when i am, as you astutely pointed out, a member of
>the academic community myself. that you find any of my casual remarks so
>terribly threatening is a testament to your own tendencies, not mine.
>
> >If you have a point to argue, please do. This is not one, and it is
> >certainly unworthy of the education you are privileged to be getting. I
> >am assuming the grammatical incompetence is a Poundian self-assertion and
> >not a failure of Berkeley.
>
>some would take your concluding remarks to be "appealing to personal
>considerations rather than to logic or reason," prof. gish, maybe even
>"using, containing, or marked by harshly abusive censure," that is to say,
>vituperative.
>
>ive nothing to prove, certainly not to you or any other tse-list denizen.
>if anything, i find it amusing that such a mild set of observations
>ruffled your feathers & entailed such a defensive attempt at a rebuke.
>
>but if i did somehow insult you, i apologize & hope you have & enjoy a
>very merry christmas.
>
>/end_harm
>
>______________________________________________________________
>___
>MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 3 months FREE*.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7
>324&DI=7
>474&SU=
>http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-
>bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_advancedj
>mf_3mf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963