Nancy Gish wrote:
> First, as I said, Carrol never characterized Eliot as having a common
> mind.  HE DID NOT SAY THAT.  So that is not at issue.
> Second,  there is no serious response to name-calling and re-writing
> what others say.  "Shadow boxing" is simply a personal attack:  it does
> not respond to anything I said or Carrol said.  What you "suspect" comes
> from no one at all.
> I think it is pointless to engage in personal sniping.
> Nancy
> >>> [log in to unmask] 08/30/05 8:43 PM >>>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
> >"Great mind" is an even more nebulous and I think trivial concept.
> >
> I disagreed with your characterisation of Eliot's having a common mind.

I didn't say that. I will add now that it really doesn't make any
difference what kind of a "mind" TSE or Einstein or Nelson Eddy or or
Clara Bow had. They're all dead and can't appreciate the compliment (if
it is a compliment). The topic of whether or not Q has a "great maind"
or not is simply boring. Why do you want to discuss what kind of a mind
Eliot (or Einstein) had?

> I tried to get you to indicate what you thought was a great mind.

I think "great mind" is a phrase that does not indicate anything of
interest to discuss. Why do you think we should think about it?