Just looks to me like a disagreement, perhaps with a slight
expression of frustration.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 6:49 AM
  Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Prufrock question

  Dear Peter,
  I'll save Nancy the trouble:
  ">>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 02/03/10 8:51 AM >>> 
  Nancy Gish wrote: 
  > Why do you ignore the fact that the word does not mean "persona" in 
  > Italian 

  CR says explicitly "*a person who could/would/might..." etc.
  Do you see it? 
  "Persona" he uses in reference to Prufrock. Can we not say 
  Prufrock is a persona? "One can visualize," not 
  "one can confirm that" is as legitimate a way of grasping (at) 
  Eliot's poetry as any. 

  Ken A "
  Asking an Eliot scholar if she is capable of close reading is hugely disrespectful. Note that Ken's "style" as you call tone, is sarcastic.


  Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:30:47 -0800
  From: [log in to unmask]
  Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Prufrock question
  To: [log in to unmask]

  Ken frequently disagrees with you.
  Is that rudeness?
  As I requested once before, would you kindly
  cite the instance of rudeness that you have found in his remarks?

  Thank you.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Nancy Gish 
    To: [log in to unmask] 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:44 AM
    Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Prufrock question

    You are always rude to me.  I have no idea why, since you do not know me.  But that has nothing to do with "seeing"  anything about the facts, and what you wrote was not difficult to see or understand.  I just do not agree with it.  I assure you I never expect you to support or even treat with respect anything I say.

    >>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 02/03/10 12:15 PM >>> 
    Nancy Gish wrote: 
    > Do you think it courteous to thank Ken for being discourteous to me? 
    > I think that an odd idea of politeness. And this still does not 
    > address the whole issue of why it would take a specific instance in 
    > all of the/ Divine Comedy/ (Dante encounters _persons _throughout) to 
    > suggest to Eliot a common poetic technique. 
    > These parallel monologues serve no purpose. Unless you answer a 
    > direct question about facts, 
    Sorry, Nancy, but it is you who ignores the facts. I tried to 
    simply and plainly put them before you regarding CR's rather innnocent 
    thought, but you choose not to see them. That's your choice, but don't 
    expect me to support it. I do not. 

    Ken A

  Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.