To quote from "Brideshead" again: "You were quite right."
I would say/write "whom" rather than "who", but no one cares anymore even in a "literary" forum such as this one.
For the same reason it took the assorted listers several days recently to discern the difference between "printer's" and "printers' " [as in marks (rather than MARX)].
Jacek Niecko
Washington DC
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Loucks, James
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:36 AM
Subject: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot

To show I can be as OT as you please: I will rise to the bait -- the Ryders mentioned by (who?) are in Brideshead Revisited, sans doute
BTW, I find it interesting that Ishiguro names his artist (pianist)-protagonist (in his masterpiece, The Unconsoled) "Mr. Ryder."--  Jim

From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. on behalf of Gunnar Jauch
Sent: Wed 07-Sep-05 7:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Echoes of Eliot

am 07.09.2005 16:37 Uhr schrieb Nancy Gish unter [log in to unmask]:

> Dear Gunnar and Jacek,
> You are right about the nonsense, but you are on the list.  Please
> engage in starting conversation on something about Eliot that is
> interesting and not simply reiterating old ideas or making personal
> remarks.  It is not enough to get on and note that others have failed:
> provide some sense please.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/07/05 9:57 AM >>>
> Bravissimo, Gunnar Jauch!
> The words that come to mind almost every time one clicks on the the TSE
> "forum" messages these days come from Edward Ryder, Charles Ryder's
> father:
> "There is no news, of course.  Such a lot of nonsense."
> Jacek Niecko
> Washington DC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gunnar Jauch" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Echoes of Eliot
>> am 7.9.05 11:45 Uhr schrieb Peter Montgomery unter
> [log in to unmask]:
>>> The
>>> future is not what it used to be, and it is now possible to predict
>>> the past in many scientific senses.
>> Bla bla bla.
>> G

Thanks, my dear Nancy,

for your patronizing and matronly call to order ;-).

But isn't it amazing that nobody else has taken offense from such asinine
unloading?  Isn't this supposed to be a list concerned with SPEECH, to
purify the language of the tribe, as it were?

Can't you see that at times it is futile to "provide some sense" or "make
personal remarks" ("bla bla" hardly qualify as such), let alone to blow
one's top over every goddamned pompous pseudo academic chattering asshole?

Wow -- now I feel better.