>The quote Peter posted is Jesuitical in it's convolutions however. Eliot
>knew how thinking can inhibit ordinary satisfactions or he would not have
>been capable of making Prufrock so convincing.

I quite agree that the passage Peter quoted is convoluted, and that in the
character of Prufrock, Eliot demonstrates how thinking can inhibit ordinary
satisfactions. Gerontion is another such character.

>Nitpicking my use of a common expression is silly.

You had a good point to make. You weakened it with a sloppy use of

>Are you going to preach at Ken now

Ken is not habitually sarcastic. You are. I finally decided to say something
about it.

>or do you believe only women are sarcastic?

More either/or thinking. Either I chastise Ken or I believe that only women
are sarcastic. Instead of recognizing that you, an individual, engage in
repeated sarcasm on this list, you deflect the criticism away as an instance
of gender bias. How much credibility do you think valid complaints about
gender bias will have if the accusation is slung around so casually?