Print

Print


Nancy,
  My remarks had nothing to do with being offensive.
If you choose to read them that way, then your perspective
is distinctly distorted.
  What a delicious opportunity you present to really
conjure up a furore. I think I shall demur. Conjugat it
as you will with whatever moral dialectic you choose.
I care not.
  Much as you have privately disagreed with my assertion
that this is an oral medium, your responses have simply
reinforced my belief in that assertion. We are saying
oral things through a textual pipeline. Don't be hypnotised
by the print. People make similar mistakes in thinking
that TV is a visual medium.
  My remarks were aimed at deflecting one kind of emotional
resonance with another. You have simply aided in that
process. Thank you.

Cheers,
Peter

Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
Camosun College
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
www.camosun.bc.ca/~peterm


-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Some language is beyond the pale


Peter,

This is the most offensive message ever posted on this list in the time I
have been on it.  Have you no idea what you are saying?  Do you think
that ludicrous icon masks or mitigates it?

I hope I am not the only one who finds this astonishingly unacceptable.

Nancy


Date sent:              Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:46:37 -0800
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Watch out for the economy
To:                     [log in to unmask]

From: John Ryskamp

You should worry less about differences between parties and start
worrying that your economy, like the American, is about to fall apart.
Here in California the State budget deficit is publicly stated to be $21
billion. But do you know what the whisper number is?  SIXTY billion, and
growing rapidly. Come about February you will see how bad it really is.  I
suppose a lot of people on this thread are tenured professors--well, these
are the folks they're talking about cutting here, even at prestigious
Berkeley. You shouldn't get caught unaware by this--you're never really
told how bad it is going to get, you have to ferret it out of people who
have reason to know how revenues and sales are really doing: California is
a disaster area, and if California sinks, America drowns (and Britain
never had a chance). Start agitating for rights that will keep you in your
housing regardless of what happens to the economic situation or your own
economic situation.   Enuf bout Eliot--aux armes!
================================================ Yes
Mark. And what do you
do for an encore? Put on black face paint with white lips, and roll around
on your bum?

;->

Cheers,
Peter


>From: INGELBIEN RAPHAEL <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: OT British politics (was Thatcher)
>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:45:47 +0100
>
>From Nancy:
>
> > I thought it very odd to see Labour called centrist and Lib-Dem not
>(...)
> > So I am still puzzled at the way you (Kate) define the parties.
>
>When one looks at issues like public services, it's hard to tell who is
now
>left of centre. In some respects, New Labour is more right-wing than
the
>Lib
>Dems. Also, did you note Charles Kennedy's address to the TUC
conference
>this year?
>
>From Kate:
>
> > Labour is almost completely centrist, which is why they won so
>decisively
>in the last couple of
> > elections
>
>It looks decisive if you consider their majority in the Commons. It
looks
>definitely less decisive if you consider the number of votes cast for
>Labour. Blair never got as many votes as John Major in 1992 - or as
>Thatcher in
the
>eighties. In some constituencies (often held by Labour), the turn-out
at
>the
>last general election was a joke (less than 40%). The overall turnout
was
>slightly over 60% - an all-time low. How solid is popular support for
>Blair, really?
>
> > rather, Labour was now the spokesperson for all of the middle class
and
>the best interests of Britain.
>
>Is there any dictionary that defines 'middle class' as a synonym of
>'Britain' ?
>
> > He made it clear that improving their Health Service and Educational
>system, and the interests of the
> > nation as a whole, was more important than union interests
>
>That's presumably why Britain is now exporting patients to continental
>hospitals. That's presumably why teacher shortages are growing at the
same
>rate as educational red tape.  That's presumably why the British
university
>system is heading for meltdown.
>
> > The Lib-Dems are now clearly to the left of many of Blair and
Labour's
>positions, the issue of Europe > and how intimate Britain should be in
>their alliance being prominent among the issues.
>
>I wonder where that leaves the Europhile Tories who want to sign up to
the
>single currency. Are they left-wing? The Europhobia of the Tory
leadership
>certainly didn't help the party much at the last two elections.
>
>I'm sure Nancy could also point out that there are parts of Britain
where
>the Euro is popular - Scotland, for instance. Though I suspect that
that
>popularity is sometimes inspired by a rejection of English attitudes,
more
>than by a real grasp of what is at stake in the single currency.
>
>Yours,
>
>RaphaŽl
>[log in to unmask]


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail