Print

Print


I thought she meant divisiveness, given the context, but her thought
still didn't make sense to me.
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Marcia Karp
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Eliot and Unitarianism

No, Diana, I didn't realize that, or I wouldn't have spent the time looking in several dictionaries for your word, which I took you at.  Since, as others have pointed out, "divisiveness" is problematic, why would  I decide that was the word you meant to use? 

And please, a typo might substitute one letter for another, but just plain getting a word wrong, and leaving out a syllable to boot, is an error in thinking or concentration or precision, not in typing.  Can't you review your messages before sending them out?  Surely you realize that you've come into an ongoing discussion in which there might be customs that you've yet to take the time to become acquainted with.

Marcia

Diana Manister wrote:
[log in to unmask] type="cite">

Marcia surely you realize that I meant divisiveness and that it was a typo. If we are going to jump on everyone whose finger slips on the keypad cyberspace traffic will slow down considerably.

Diana


From:  Marcia Karp <[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:  Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:33:47 -0400


What is "deviseness"?


Diana Manister wrote:

>Regarding Eliot's deviseness, I would go a step further and
>speculate that he seems to have been deeply committed to it, in the
>sense of seeing man and God as divided from each other.
>
>


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006