Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll's Thoughts

Expand Messages
  • Keith Wright
    Ann, it s very kind of you to say so but I d be entering the realms of speculation and copying the style of books I abhor if I even attempted it! I ve
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 8, 2004
      Ann,
       
      it's very kind of you to say so but I'd be entering the realms of speculation and copying the style of books I abhor if I even attempted it!  I've followed CLD around the British isles for years trying to see what he saw and sat in record offices for hours trying to understand his ancestry etc. and in the end he always eludes me.  I'm not alone in that but I hope I just have enough common sense to realise it and keep my pen off the paper in needless speculation. My ancestry info will, however, be published in the Carrollian's next issue and that's as far as I will go with it. I just got interested in that subject although it explains very little, if anything, about him and his works but, as a Yorkshireman, I was pleased to find that the Dodgson family were from solid Yorkshire farming  stock!  The most revealing piece is,  think, his grandfather's will - obviously written by a man who knew he was probably going to die the next day.  Real melodrama!  It will be quoted in my piece in full, except for where I could not decipher it!
       
      I was going to do a guide to the CLD places but Charlie Lovet beat me to it - he didn't do it as well as I would, being a stranger to these shores, and it should have been in colour, but nevertheless it's been done.  Kate keeps on at me to write it even now but the moment has passed.
       
      There's a lot of folk like me beavering away - Maurice Taylor for instance in Ripon is doing a great job and he even has an exhibition set up near the cathedral - one I urge anyone within the UK to visit.  I've done a booklet on Daresbury, mainly about the church his father preached in, which I give to any visitors, LC minded or otherwise, who visit the place. I am happy to give tours around Daresbury should anyone be interested in that, sometimes difficult to fit things in though, as Richard on our list will tell you!
       
      Incidentally, one thing I came across which puzzles me is that Daresbury was a poor parish and Croft was a rich one, according to all we know, but CLD's father worked exceedingly hard in Daresbury but had relatively little to do in Croft!  A reflection of the wealth of the parish perhaps rather than the number of inhabitants!
       
      Keith w 
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:14 PM
      Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll's Thoughts

      Kate, I was thinking this very thing! So I'm glad you said it. I would love to see your book, too, Keith.
      AnnOxford



      On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 07:14 AM, Kate wrote:

      Thanks Keith - plenty of food for thought there.  I actually don't know why you don't write a bio of Carroll - you have so much factual information there that its a pity to go to waste. 
    • mikeindex2001
      For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth is that it s possible to construct a much better one than he did, and knowing his powers
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
        For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth
        is that it's possible to construct a much better one than he did, and
        knowing his powers of logical analysis it seems hard to believe he
        couldn't see that too. I wonder why he opted for a weak case when
        there was a better one to be had? Maybe he was just blinded by an a
        priori belief, or is it possible he was deliberately creating a weak
        and false argument to see what responses he got? He seems to have
        enjoyed teaching by provocation rather than example after all

        Mike



        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
        wrote:
        > Mike,
        >
        > not being a fan of S&B I'd not read this or if I had it hadn't
        registered.
        >
      • Jim Buch
        ... Can you amplify on the teaching by provocation a little? One has to be careful with this method, because some of the students will all too easily miss
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
          --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "mikeindex2001"
          <alphabeticalorder@m...> wrote:
          >
          > For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth
          > is that it's possible to construct a much better one than he did, and
          > knowing his powers of logical analysis it seems hard to believe he
          > couldn't see that too. I wonder why he opted for a weak case when
          > there was a better one to be had? Maybe he was just blinded by an a
          > priori belief, or is it possible he was deliberately creating a weak
          > and false argument to see what responses he got? He seems to have
          > enjoyed teaching by provocation rather than example after all
          >
          > Mike
          >
          >

          Can you amplify on the "teaching by provocation" a little?

          One has to be careful with this method, because some of the "students"
          will all too easily miss the whole point.

          I would like to hear how he used the technique. I've probably already
          read it and missed it.

          Jim
        • Keith Wright
          Mike, another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD wasn t the narrator so was writing it from someone else s point of view. That would
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
            Mike,

            another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD wasn't the
            narrator so was writing it from someone else's point of view.

            That would appear to fit as the two class system must have obviously seemed
            suspect to someone such as CLD who moved mainly among the middle classes.

            Keith




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "mikeindex2001" <alphabeticalorder@...>
            To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:27 AM
            Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Inherited Wealth - LC's commentary in 'Sylvie &
            Bruno'


            >
            > For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth
            > is that it's possible to construct a much better one than he did, and
            > knowing his powers of logical analysis it seems hard to believe he
            > couldn't see that too. I wonder why he opted for a weak case when
            > there was a better one to be had? Maybe he was just blinded by an a
            > priori belief, or is it possible he was deliberately creating a weak
            > and false argument to see what responses he got? He seems to have
            > enjoyed teaching by provocation rather than example after all
            >
            > Mike
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
            > wrote:
            > > Mike,
            > >
            > > not being a fan of S&B I'd not read this or if I had it hadn't
            > registered.
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > visit our homepage at:
            >
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
            >
            > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
            lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • jenny2write
            ... wasn t the ... Keith, I do think this is a good point. When reading the entire section it seems to me as if CLD is actually using the material about
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
              > another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD
              wasn't the
              > narrator so was writing it from someone else's point of view.

              Keith, I do think this is a good point. When reading the entire
              section it seems to me as if CLD is actually using the material about
              inherited wealth as part of a larger argument.

              He is differentiating between the ideas that (1) there can be no
              logical justification for demanding that someone contributes to
              society just because they have inherited wealth - and (2) that there
              is nonetheless a MORAL justification for expecting a rich person to
              contribute to society. And he then goes on to consider (3) how you
              evaluate the contribution made by this rich person, who can afford so
              much more than a poor person.

              IN (1) he works on the assumption that in order to acquire wealth or
              money someone has to work to earn it. Therefore, if you possess
              wealth (or have inherited it) it means that your dues to society have
              already been paid, either by you or whoever earned the money.
              Therefore nobody can expect you to contribute any more to society.
              (And he also dismisses the idea that wealth may not have been fairly
              or honestly earned, by saying that one cannot research the
              provenance of all one's own assets.)

              He then contrasts this with the religious and moral view which, in a
              nutshell, is that however much money you have, your skills and
              talents belong to God and you have a duty to God to use them for the
              benefit of others.

              Jenny
            • Keith Wright
              Jenny, it s an argument which is based of course on people acting reasonably - which naturally they don t! There seems to be some logic in the fact CLD puts
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
                Jenny,

                it's an argument which is based of course on people acting reasonably -
                which naturally they don't!

                There seems to be some logic in the fact CLD puts forward that those who
                earn it should be entitled to use it but that after that it should go back
                into the common pool. This overlooks the fact that whilst they are alive
                they naturally use the money to confer status, position and power on their
                offspring. However, it also neglects the rule of three! This is that by
                the third generation away from the earner the offspring are so spoiled by
                money and position that society might regard them as being totally off their
                trolleys and so they are of little use to the society they live in!

                For myself I think the common pool idea is the best and no inherited wealth
                should occur but it's a very simplistic model and it is very difficult to
                see how it could work in practice. CLD or his narrator tried to apply logic
                to the situation and failed.

                Having said this it amazes me how England escaped the revolutions of 1830
                and 1848 and Victoria lived in fear of assassination and revolution
                throughout her life. Osborne House, being on an island, was a good bolt
                hole when things looks like getting difficult, although how much she knew of
                the grinding poverty the poor lived in is debateable.

                Keith




                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 10:43 PM
                Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Inherited Wealth - LC's commentary in 'Sylvie &
                Bruno'


                >
                > > another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD
                > wasn't the
                > > narrator so was writing it from someone else's point of view.
                >
                > Keith, I do think this is a good point. When reading the entire
                > section it seems to me as if CLD is actually using the material about
                > inherited wealth as part of a larger argument.
                >
                > He is differentiating between the ideas that (1) there can be no
                > logical justification for demanding that someone contributes to
                > society just because they have inherited wealth - and (2) that there
                > is nonetheless a MORAL justification for expecting a rich person to
                > contribute to society. And he then goes on to consider (3) how you
                > evaluate the contribution made by this rich person, who can afford so
                > much more than a poor person.
                >
                > IN (1) he works on the assumption that in order to acquire wealth or
                > money someone has to work to earn it. Therefore, if you possess
                > wealth (or have inherited it) it means that your dues to society have
                > already been paid, either by you or whoever earned the money.
                > Therefore nobody can expect you to contribute any more to society.
                > (And he also dismisses the idea that wealth may not have been fairly
                > or honestly earned, by saying that one cannot research the
                > provenance of all one's own assets.)
                >
                > He then contrasts this with the religious and moral view which, in a
                > nutshell, is that however much money you have, your skills and
                > talents belong to God and you have a duty to God to use them for the
                > benefit of others.
                >
                > Jenny
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > visit our homepage at:
                >
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                >
                > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • jenny2write
                Which of CLD s colleagues was it - Strong?? - who said that he thought CLD s aim was to try and codify a system of logic which would work in everyday life. Or
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                  Which of CLD's colleagues was it - Strong?? - who said that he
                  thought CLD's aim was to try and codify a system of logic which would
                  work in everyday life. Or something like that. Sorry don't have the
                  exact quote. I imagine CLD knew it was doomed to failure really -
                  but I think he liked to try, and keep trying - because it seems to
                  have mattered such a lot to him to seek certainties. I think if one
                  reads his ideas in this light, they make more sense.

                  Remember that when he was on his death bed (which must be a pretty
                  unpleasant place to be) he clung on to mathematics and worked out
                  sums until he could write no more. This shows how much of a prop it
                  was to him to have certainties to hold on to: they are what he turned
                  to in extremis. (Incidentally I believe the sheets of paper he worked
                  on then were kept by the sisters - anyone know where they are?)

                  I would guess that the problem of religion offering NO logical
                  certainties was a trial to him always, since he seems to have had an
                  intense emotional need to believe in God, and probably believed that
                  his own worth was connected with how close he was to God. Yet God is
                  only visible through the eyes of faith, and simply disappears when
                  logic is applied.

                  We know how it troubled CLD being unable to argue logically about
                  religion - this could well have been why he refused to become
                  ordained priest.

                  I sometimes think of the Red Queen's advice to Alice to practice
                  believing impossible things in order to fit herself for adult life -
                  six of them before breakfast every day. It is a typically comical and
                  light hearted joke but CLD often made really quite funny jokes about
                  intellectual problems which genuinely bothered him. I wonder if CLD
                  himself felt that he had been brought up believing impossible things.
                  Because if something has been drummed into you in childhood as a
                  condition of being acceptable to those you love - then it is very,
                  very hard to chuck those ideas out.
                • Jim Buch
                  ... Reminds me of my father. Long ago, I bought him a scientific calculator before they were so common and inexpensive. Prior to that he was really proud of
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                    --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "jenny2write" <woolf@j...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Remember that when he was on his death bed (which must be a pretty
                    > unpleasant place to be) he clung on to mathematics and worked out
                    > sums until he could write no more. This shows how much of a prop it
                    > was to him to have certainties to hold on to: they are what he turned
                    > to in extremis. (Incidentally I believe the sheets of paper he worked
                    > on then were kept by the sisters - anyone know where they are?)
                    >
                    >

                    Reminds me of my father.

                    Long ago, I bought him a "scientific calculator" before they were so
                    common and inexpensive.

                    Prior to that he was really proud of his use of logarithms to solve
                    arithmetic problems, and the use of trigonometric tables to do a
                    little trig.

                    Now, the logarithmic tables and trig tables and more were all inside
                    this little flat box that fit in his hand.

                    He died at the kitchen table. He had the logarithm and trig tables
                    out, and sheets and sheets of paper. He was tediously checking the
                    "scientific calculator".

                    I was asked if I wanted the sheets of paper and said "No".

                    Perhaps it gave him comfort as the world was changing and what used to
                    be hard and valuable was no longer so.

                    To me now, the doing of mathematics on a deathbed doesn't seem strange.
                  • Keith Wright
                    Jenny, I m not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he said when he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the rules at
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                      Jenny,

                      I'm not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he said when
                      he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the rules at
                      Ch.Ch. not just the ones he agreed with! Thought himself unfit for the
                      ministry! If every vicar took that view there would be a lot of empty
                      pulpits!

                      I think many folk who have firm views about things just cannot understand
                      why others do not share their views - especially if logic gives them a
                      platform upon which to argue for their corner.

                      Keith



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                      To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:03 AM
                      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Logic as applied to everyday life.


                      > Which of CLD's colleagues was it - Strong?? - who said that he
                      > thought CLD's aim was to try and codify a system of logic which would
                      > work in everyday life. Or something like that. Sorry don't have the
                      > exact quote. I imagine CLD knew it was doomed to failure really -
                      > but I think he liked to try, and keep trying - because it seems to
                      > have mattered such a lot to him to seek certainties. I think if one
                      > reads his ideas in this light, they make more sense.
                      >
                      > Remember that when he was on his death bed (which must be a pretty
                      > unpleasant place to be) he clung on to mathematics and worked out
                      > sums until he could write no more. This shows how much of a prop it
                      > was to him to have certainties to hold on to: they are what he turned
                      > to in extremis. (Incidentally I believe the sheets of paper he worked
                      > on then were kept by the sisters - anyone know where they are?)
                      >
                      > I would guess that the problem of religion offering NO logical
                      > certainties was a trial to him always, since he seems to have had an
                      > intense emotional need to believe in God, and probably believed that
                      > his own worth was connected with how close he was to God. Yet God is
                      > only visible through the eyes of faith, and simply disappears when
                      > logic is applied.
                      >
                      > We know how it troubled CLD being unable to argue logically about
                      > religion - this could well have been why he refused to become
                      > ordained priest.
                      >
                      > I sometimes think of the Red Queen's advice to Alice to practice
                      > believing impossible things in order to fit herself for adult life -
                      > six of them before breakfast every day. It is a typically comical and
                      > light hearted joke but CLD often made really quite funny jokes about
                      > intellectual problems which genuinely bothered him. I wonder if CLD
                      > himself felt that he had been brought up believing impossible things.
                      > Because if something has been drummed into you in childhood as a
                      > condition of being acceptable to those you love - then it is very,
                      > very hard to chuck those ideas out.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > visit our homepage at:
                      >
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                      >
                      > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                      lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • jenny2write
                      ... said when ... rules at ... the ... Keith, perhaps I put that badly. This has always seemed to me to be an area he COULD NOT think about, because it was a
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                        wrote:
                        > Jenny,
                        >
                        > I'm not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he
                        said when
                        > he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the
                        rules at
                        > Ch.Ch. not just the ones he agreed with! Thought himself unfit for
                        the
                        > ministry!

                        Keith, perhaps I put that badly. This has always seemed to me to be
                        an area he COULD NOT think about, because it was a very, very serious
                        conflict for him. To think it would not ever be possible to crack the
                        code of the world by using the intellect, is a deeply disturbing idea
                        to the kind of person who likes to pin down the underlying rules and
                        understand them thoroughly. For the same reason the idea of God is
                        often highly unsatisfactory to anyone who has that precise and
                        rational cast of mind. I believe CLD's mixed emotions prevented him
                        from thinking about this kind of thing sensibly - the conflict was
                        TOO disturbing.

                        Didn't he believe himself unfit for the ministry because he could not
                        convince his little bro of something simple like the necessity to
                        stick to the rules at Ch Ch? And therefore fatally doubted his
                        ability to advise parishioners about religious difficulties in a
                        logical way? If so, that says it all. No wonder he wanted to give
                        up the ministry, and I think this is probably why he did refuse to be
                        a priest. A leopard can't change their spots, and if CLD was the
                        kind of guy who was unable to believe anything unless he had worked
                        it out for himself, then the idea of trying and failing to convince
                        others of what he himself was secretly unconvinced about, would be
                        catastrophic for him.

                        What an interesting thing about your Dad, Jim. Did you inherit
                        this attitude towards mathematics being somehow reassuring and
                        dependable? I have never been quite sure of your line of work but I
                        have had the impression it is mathematical.

                        And on the subject of mathematics, did CLD ever say anything which
                        suggested he saw mathematics as a very basic feature of the universe?
                        I have wondered about the view put forward by some modern scientists
                        that *everything* is ultimately based on mathematics. Jenny
                      • Keith Wright
                        Jenny, CLD wasn t alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the ministry. Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold and Stanley were
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                          Jenny,

                          CLD wasn't alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the ministry.
                          Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold and
                          Stanley were also brave enough to express their doubts to their friends.
                          I'd guess anyone who did not have doubts had not thought about it.

                          CLD delved quite a lot into probabilities and I would think a mind such as
                          his would not be able to resist applying his logic to the field of religion.
                          We have in physics a similar barrier to knowing about the behaviour of small
                          particles which means that we can know where something is at any instance or
                          what it is doing but we cannot be certain of the outcome because we cannot
                          know both conditions at the same time. It may be that CLD thought along the
                          lines of probability and knew there was no certainty.

                          In the field of human nature predicting behaviour is almost impossible.

                          Keith

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                          To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 8:13 PM
                          Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Logic as applied to everyday life.


                          > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > Jenny,
                          > >
                          > > I'm not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he
                          > said when
                          > > he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the
                          > rules at
                          > > Ch.Ch. not just the ones he agreed with! Thought himself unfit for
                          > the
                          > > ministry!
                          >
                          > Keith, perhaps I put that badly. This has always seemed to me to be
                          > an area he COULD NOT think about, because it was a very, very serious
                          > conflict for him. To think it would not ever be possible to crack the
                          > code of the world by using the intellect, is a deeply disturbing idea
                          > to the kind of person who likes to pin down the underlying rules and
                          > understand them thoroughly. For the same reason the idea of God is
                          > often highly unsatisfactory to anyone who has that precise and
                          > rational cast of mind. I believe CLD's mixed emotions prevented him
                          > from thinking about this kind of thing sensibly - the conflict was
                          > TOO disturbing.
                          >
                          > Didn't he believe himself unfit for the ministry because he could not
                          > convince his little bro of something simple like the necessity to
                          > stick to the rules at Ch Ch? And therefore fatally doubted his
                          > ability to advise parishioners about religious difficulties in a
                          > logical way? If so, that says it all. No wonder he wanted to give
                          > up the ministry, and I think this is probably why he did refuse to be
                          > a priest. A leopard can't change their spots, and if CLD was the
                          > kind of guy who was unable to believe anything unless he had worked
                          > it out for himself, then the idea of trying and failing to convince
                          > others of what he himself was secretly unconvinced about, would be
                          > catastrophic for him.
                          >
                          > What an interesting thing about your Dad, Jim. Did you inherit
                          > this attitude towards mathematics being somehow reassuring and
                          > dependable? I have never been quite sure of your line of work but I
                          > have had the impression it is mathematical.
                          >
                          > And on the subject of mathematics, did CLD ever say anything which
                          > suggested he saw mathematics as a very basic feature of the universe?
                          > I have wondered about the view put forward by some modern scientists
                          > that *everything* is ultimately based on mathematics. Jenny
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > visit our homepage at:
                          >
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                          >
                          > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                          lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • jenny2write
                          ... ministry. ... and ... friends. How interesting - I did not know this. Can you give me references, please?
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                            --- In
                            >
                            > CLD wasn't alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the
                            ministry.
                            > Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold
                            and
                            > Stanley were also brave enough to express their doubts to their
                            friends.

                            How interesting - I did not know this. Can you give me references,
                            please?
                          • Keith Wright
                            Jenny, it s in their respective bios. Stanley s Life of Arnold page 340 in the case of Arnold and A Victorian Dean page 24 in the case of Stanley. In
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                              Jenny,

                              it's in their respective bios. Stanley's 'Life of Arnold' page 340 in the
                              case of Arnold and 'A Victorian Dean' page 24 in the case of Stanley. In
                              Liddell's case I think I read it in his bio but as the index is not
                              comprehensive I haven't been able to locate the reference. Perhaps someone
                              else can source that?

                              Stanley had similar doubts as CLD but not so much in his ability but as to
                              the articles. Anyhow, read it and make up your own mind.

                              Keith


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                              To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:06 PM
                              Subject: [lewiscarroll] CLD - should he ever have been ordained?


                              > --- In
                              > >
                              > > CLD wasn't alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the
                              > ministry.
                              > > Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold
                              > and
                              > > Stanley were also brave enough to express their doubts to their
                              > friends.
                              >
                              > How interesting - I did not know this. Can you give me references,
                              > please?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > visit our homepage at:
                              >
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                              >
                              > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                              lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • jenny2write
                              ... but as to ... Thanks for the info Keith but I don t have either of those books - is it possible for you to quote them or are the extracts too long to type
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jun 12, 2004
                                >
                                > Stanley had similar doubts as CLD but not so much in his ability
                                but as to
                                > the articles. Anyhow, read it and make up your own mind.

                                Thanks for the info Keith but I don't have either of those books - is
                                it possible for you to quote them or are the extracts too long to
                                type out? Jenny
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.