Print

Print


Thank yu for saying please.
I was talking to Marcia. I just let the list overhear it.
If I had used the word you, it would have been very cornfusing.
Marcia would have thought I was talking to her.
 
Again, clarity comes with precision.
 
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Diana Manister
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Eliot and Unitarianism

Peter, please do not refer to me in third person when I am an active member of this list who will read your messages.

By Eliot's being "divisive" I meant not only his positioning of his narrators to women, Jews and the lower working classes as Others, but his expression of his vision of a fallen world, divided from God. He was a sinner like the rest of us, and expressed that self-knowledge perceptively. I could have used the word in a less confusing way and for that I apologize. If I were writing a paper for publication, I would have edited that. Diana


From: Peter Montgomery <[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: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:16:02 -0700

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]>

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


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 9/27/2006