Print

Print


There is something positively Miltonic about what you have written here,
Ken. Something tells me the Possum would have a good chuckle at it.
As the indomitable St. Paul said, "To the world, so much foolishness"
which Eliot echoed in "Journey of the Magi", saying that "this was all
folly."

I recently heard an interview with Lawrence Solomon,who wrote
"The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against
global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud, and
those who are fearful to do so"
http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-World-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

The use of "Deniers" is an allusion to Holocaust Deniers. Now supposing
the world decides to do a flip and calm down about global warming, and
perhaps get a bee in its bonnet about having been duped by Al Gore et al.
(good old al.). Pro-global warming might become something equivalent to
the so-called anti-semitism that liberal thought experimented with in the
early 1930s. Someone like Al Gore who was just trying to promote what he
thought was right, might be villainised as Eliot has been.

One also thinks of the victims of the McCarthy witch trials, &c., &c.

BTW, did you know that the satellites are telling us that the ice
on antarctica is thickening, and that the continent is getting colder,
the hottest year in the last century was not 1994 as most globalists
would have us think, it was 1933. Also the past decade was colder than
the previous one, &c.,&c.

Oh yes, and... you're right.

God bless,
Peter

Aug 21, 2009 02:09:55 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

    Nancy Gish wrote:
    > Dear Diana,
    >
    > I have no doubt you're right.
    For my part, I have no doubt you are wrong, and I'd add woefully, but to
    no useful end. In ASG Eliot wrote, "The acrimony which accompanies much
    debate is a symptom of differences so large that there is nothing to
    argue about." The gulf between what I see in ASG (and in Eliot more
    generally) and what you see is so large that there seems little point in
    pursuing it. One can "idealize" villainy as well as heroism, and my
    honest thought is that you have produced an Eliotic villain who never
    existed, i.e. an un-Eliotic villain who is the product of your own
    imaginations. I'm quite aware that you disagree but simply wish to make
    the point.

    Ken


Aug 21, 2009 02:09:55 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
Nancy Gish wrote:
> Dear Diana,
>
> I have no doubt you're right.
For my part, I have no doubt you are wrong, and I'd add woefully, but to
no useful end. In ASG Eliot wrote, "The acrimony which accompanies much
debate is a symptom of differences so large that there is nothing to
argue about." The gulf between what I see in ASG (and in Eliot more
generally) and what you see is so large that there seems little point in
pursuing it. One can "idealize" villainy as well as heroism, and my
honest thought is that you have produced an Eliotic villain who never
existed, i.e. an un-Eliotic villain who is the product of your own
imaginations. I'm quite aware that you disagree but simply wish to make
the point.

Ken