Ken, I mean that I did not toss the remark off without having studied sources. One can agree or not, but I did not invent the characterization of Eliot as biased and flawed. Diana

From:  Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: Eliot and Unitarianism
Date:  Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:41:15 -0400
At 05:17 PM 9/22/2006, Diana Manister wrote:

>CR wrote: I'm sorry but your remark, "Eliot, though an imaginative
>genius, had his own divisive vision. Alas." is rather off-the-cuff,
>Diana.There should be no confusion on this count if one reads Lyndon
>Gordon's "Eliot's Early Years". I got my basic clarity on the
>subject from it.
>CR: Rather than off the cuff, my remark was based on documentation
>as cited in this excerpt from the Boston Globe:

   A rogues' gallery, I think, of a certain ideological bent and willingness to revise, invent, and select "facts" to order. But do you mean your clarity comes from the article, not even the works cited? That's a definition of off-the-cuff, isn't it?

Ken A.