Terry, a literalist can make anyone look like a fool. If you were to  
use the expression "it's nothing" would you really expect anyone to  
explain to you how absolute nothing is not possible?

I was portrayed as half of a comedy team when I was posting my  
comments about Eliot. According to you that's appropriate, but a snide  
comeback is not.

Your attempt to deflect the charge of misogyny by accusing me of  
hiding my character flaws behind it is a well-known technique of  
reversal. You could say that whenever the term is used, and my guess  
is that you do.

When you preach at a male on the list I'll reconsider my opinion of you.

Sent from my iPod

On Apr 3, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Terry Traynor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >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  
> language.
> >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?
> Terry