That's the expected response.
Frankly I can find nothing rude about Ken's note. It is simply a statement
of disagreement. People have differing opinions. Is it rude for
list members to disagree with you?
 
It is my perception that you and Ken have very different fundamental takes on
Eliot, that means that there could be a lot of disagreements.
 
Do you simply resort to your own form of petulance when you
don't have a good response to a difference of opinion?
 
Could you please point out what is rude about Ken's posting?
 
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Nancy Gish
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot and internationalism

Oh stop it.  I'm sick of this too and not interested in any petulant exchange.
N

>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>01/07/10 8:02 PM >>>

And that justifies throwing a tantrum?

P.

On Jan 6, 2010, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It is always interesting to see how people who are constantly and intensely rude are so offended and shocked if they are called on it.
Nancy

>>> Peter Montgomery 01/06/10 5:52 PM >>>
And of course this kind of a response is going to fix everything and make the list what you want it to be.
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>Nancy Gish
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>[log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot and internationalism

Oh for heaven's sake, can you never respond to anything with a serious idea?  "Damn good line" is irrelevant to what I said and to the book and to how Eliot is read and to anything now being done in Eliot studies (as is "modified in the guts of the living" when applied to those who wrote when Eliot was alive also). Why don't you discuss something new directly and, if you disagree, critique?
 
This constant sniping is ridiculous and ruins the list.  It has nothing to do with any serious or current or even honest thinking about Eliot.  It becomes increasingly pointless to say anything if all it produces is this sort of nasty and pointless and childish reactions.  If you actually have anything to say about Eliot that you think is not "lite," for god's sake say it. 
 
I should have known better than to hope an important and fascinating new book might lead to some discussion of Eliot.  If "read not at all" is your own general method, no wonder it produces only this.
 
To the list:  I am increasingly sick of this kind of thing and really wish we could return to ideas.  Please join in.
Nancy

>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 01/03/10 3:18 PM >>>
Nancy Gish wrote:
> A great deal of the response developed when he was alive--"modified"
> nonetheless, or possibly differently or better read.
"modified in the guts of the living" -- that's a pretty damn good
line. "Possibly different" doesn't quite catch it, better read not at
all, though for sure what we're asked to imbibe is often Eliot Lite or
Eliot relativized. Oh for a literary French chef.

HNY,
Ken A
>
> >>> Chokh Raj 01/03/10 1:30 PM >>>
> "Now he is scattered among a hundred cities
> And wholly given over to unfamiliar affections,
> To find his happiness in another kind of wood
> And be punished under a foreign code of conscience.
> The words of a dead man
> Are modified in the guts of the living."
>
>