Print

Print


Unless a game is being played that I'm too simple-minded to comprehend, this
so-called list, supposedly dedicated to Thomas Stearns Eliot's (1888-1965)
work and, perhaps, some aspects of his life too, has gone COMPLETELY CRAZY
AND WEIRD lately and should, perhaps, be dissolved, abandoned, discarded,
and fast forgotten.


Jacek Niecko
1920 S Street, N.W., Apt. 403
Washington DC 20009
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Montgomery" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: 800 American professors and one student are wrong again


> Is he the one who got turned into a pillory of stone
> in the Senate for ringing the bell backwards?
>
> 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 23, 2002 2:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 800 American professors and one student are wrong again
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Have you been following the tribulations of Trent Lott?
> Nancy
>
>
>
> Date sent:              Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:31:35 -0800
> Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
> <[log in to unmask]>
> From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:                Re: 800 American professors and one student are
> wrong again
> To:                     [log in to unmask]
>
> Oops. I think Al Jolson is back.
> P.
>
>
> 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: deleuze oedipus rimbaud [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 800 American professors and one student are wrong again
>
>
>
> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 di! rectly 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 appreci! ate 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 men! tion 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 super! ior 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!  <http://ca.personals.yahoo.com/> Yahoo! Canada
> Personals