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

Read the books, THEN gripe Re: [mythsoc] New Screwtape

Expand Messages
  • Elizabeth Apgar Triano
    I would third that remark, and Wendell s earlier urgings. _Mere Christianity_, _Surprised by Joy_, and _The Four Loves_, to name only the first three I can
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I would third that remark, and Wendell's earlier urgings. _Mere
      Christianity_, _Surprised by Joy_, and _The Four Loves_, to name only the
      first three I can think of, are short books and fast reading. Read them.
      Or at least don't argue so about them if you aren't going to read them.

      thanks,

      Lizzie

      Elizabeth Apgar Triano
      lizziewriter@...
      amor vincit omnia
      www.lizziewriter.com
      www.danburymineralogicalsociety.org


      > [Original Message]
      > From: Mike Foster <mafoster@...>
      > To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: 3/26/2005 10:16:04 AM
      > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] New Screwtape
      >
      >
      > I agree with Wendell; the hours you've spent involved in this bunfight,
      > Carl, would've been far more profitably spent reading Mere Christianity.
      >
      > I stand by my original remark; the dark subtleties you found it are of
      > your own devise.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Mike
      >
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... Who here is griping about these or any other of Lewis s books? Who here is arguing about them? I asked John a very simple question about _his_ claim
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 26, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:

        > I would third that remark, and Wendell's earlier urgings. _Mere
        > Christianity_, _Surprised by Joy_, and _The Four Loves_, to name only
        > the
        > first three I can think of, are short books and fast reading. Read
        > them.
        > Or at least don't argue so about them if you aren't going to read them.

        Who here is "griping" about these or any other of Lewis's books? Who
        here is arguing about them? I asked John a very simple question about
        _his_ claim about Lewis.

        Might I suggest that _you_, Lizzie, not "gripe" or "argue" about posts
        if you aren't going to read them?
      • Mike Foster
        Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl? They, better than John or me or Wendell or anyone else, would tell you what you want to know. Happy
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?

          They, better than John or me or Wendell or anyone else, would tell you
          what you want to know.

          Happy Easter, by the way.

          Mike

          Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

          >On Mar 26, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >>I would third that remark, and Wendell's earlier urgings. _Mere
          >>Christianity_, _Surprised by Joy_, and _The Four Loves_, to name only
          >>the
          >>first three I can think of, are short books and fast reading. Read
          >>them.
          >>Or at least don't argue so about them if you aren't going to read them.
          >>
          >>
          >
          >Who here is "griping" about these or any other of Lewis's books? Who
          >here is arguing about them? I asked John a very simple question about
          >_his_ claim about Lewis.
          >
          >Might I suggest that _you_, Lizzie, not "gripe" or "argue" about posts
          >if you aren't going to read them?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... No, not yet. ... If you believe that, then you have not the slightest idea what I want to know, and have not yourself bothered to go read my posts to learn
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mar 27, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

            > Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?

            No, not yet.

            > They, better than John or me or Wendell or anyone else, would tell you
            > what you want to know.

            If you believe that, then you have not the slightest idea what I want
            to know, and have not yourself bothered to go read my posts to learn
            what in fact I do want to know. So, physician, heal thyself.

            I want to know _on what basis_ John thinks that Lewis would have
            thought that abortion and euthanasia could be matters about which
            Christians could hold legitimate differences of opinion without moral
            or intellectual fault.

            I don't have to read any of Lewis's works to doubt that he believed
            that. I also don't have to go searching through everything Lewis wrote
            to find support for it (not that I think there is such support in
            anything he wrote anyways). John made the claim, and I want to know the
            basis for it. Either he knows something in Lewis's writing upon which
            he bases his claim, or he does not know of any such support, and is
            simply projecting his own beliefs onto Lewis.

            If he continues to ignore my question, I am content to believe that the
            latter is true, as I do now in the absence of any evidence to the
            contrary.

            > Happy Easter, by the way.

            Thank you! And to you! And to all who read this list.
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            I would like to point out, also, how completely specious is the argument that Mike makes and Lizzie seconds. Let s say that someone claimed that Lewis believed
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I would like to point out, also, how completely specious is the
              argument that Mike makes and Lizzie seconds. Let's say that someone
              claimed that Lewis believed that God's true name was Argle-Bargle. This
              on its surface would strike most of us, I'm sure, as a most unlikely
              thing for Lewis to believe. According to the Fosterian School of
              Scholarship, however, we are not allowed to ask that person to back up
              their claim, by pointing us to evidence for it. Instead, by Mike's
              little lecture, we should go off and (re)read everything Lewis wrote,
              to see if we can find where the evidence is.

              Does anybody here _not_ think that would be absurd? Why is the case of
              John's claim about Lewis any different?
            • WendellWag@aol.com
              Carl, my apologies for the way that this thread turned out. I didn t mean it as an attack on you. If anything, I was blaming John for making a pretty weird
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Carl, my apologies for the way that this thread turned out. I didn't mean
                it as an attack on you. If anything, I was blaming John for making a pretty
                weird claim and then dropping out of the thread. I just think that reading
                Lewis is more interesting that arguing about random claims about him.

                Wendell Wagner


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mike Foster
                The question was: Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The question was:

                  Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?





                  Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                  >On Mar 27, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >No, not yet.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>They, better than John or me or Wendell or anyone else, would tell you
                  >>what you want to know.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >If you believe that, then you have not the slightest idea what I want
                  >to know, and have not yourself bothered to go read my posts to learn
                  >what in fact I do want to know. So, physician, heal thyself.
                  >
                  >I want to know _on what basis_ John thinks that Lewis would have
                  >thought that abortion and euthanasia could be matters about which
                  >Christians could hold legitimate differences of opinion without moral
                  >or intellectual fault.
                  >
                  >I don't have to read any of Lewis's works to doubt that he believed
                  >that. I also don't have to go searching through everything Lewis wrote
                  >to find support for it (not that I think there is such support in
                  >anything he wrote anyways). John made the claim, and I want to know the
                  >basis for it. Either he knows something in Lewis's writing upon which
                  >he bases his claim, or he does not know of any such support, and is
                  >simply projecting his own beliefs onto Lewis.
                  >
                  >If he continues to ignore my question, I am content to believe that the
                  >latter is true, as I do now in the absence of any evidence to the
                  >contrary.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Happy Easter, by the way.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >Thank you! And to you! And to all who read this list.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mike Foster
                  And your reply, Carl, was: I don t have to read any of Lewis s works to doubt that he believed that.
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    And your reply, Carl, was:

                    I don't have to read any of Lewis's works to doubt that he believed
                    that.



                    Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                    >I would like to point out, also, how completely specious is the
                    >argument that Mike makes and Lizzie seconds. Let's say that someone
                    >claimed that Lewis believed that God's true name was Argle-Bargle. This
                    >on its surface would strike most of us, I'm sure, as a most unlikely
                    >thing for Lewis to believe. According to the Fosterian School of
                    >Scholarship, however, we are not allowed to ask that person to back up
                    >their claim, by pointing us to evidence for it. Instead, by Mike's
                    >little lecture, we should go off and (re)read everything Lewis wrote,
                    >to see if we can find where the evidence is.
                    >
                    >Does anybody here _not_ think that would be absurd? Why is the case of
                    >John's claim about Lewis any different?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Bill West
                    Carl, with all due respect, Lizzie has a valid point. If John bases his belief on what Lewis might think of modern issues on his understanding of the books,
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Carl, with all due respect, Lizzie has a valid point.
                      If John bases his belief on what Lewis might think of modern
                      issues on his understanding of the books, then it might help you
                      counter his arguments if you read them as well.
                      Likewise, insisting that John cite specific passages or quotes from
                      the books to support his arguments when you haven't read the book in
                      question yourself or the quotations in the context of the whole book
                      doesn't seem logical.
                      I have not read all the books in question as yet, so I have not felt that
                      I had the qualifications to comment upon this whole discussion.But
                      this last volley of posts has brought me out of the foxhole.
                      Thirdly, as to Lizzie's comment, I believe the word "gripe" was not in
                      reference to Lewis' books but rather your response to John.
                      Given the tone some of the recent posts, might I suggest an Easter
                      moratorium?
                      Ok, back to the foxhole.
                      Bill



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Mike Foster
                      I ve been reading these threads as they ve been woven as closely as the next guy, and I swear to Fudd I cannot recall a passage where John said what you, Carl,
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I've been reading these threads as they've been woven as closely as the
                        next guy, and I swear to Fudd I cannot recall a passage where John said
                        what you, Carl, say he said.

                        You want some one to back up a claim based on your perception of what
                        Lewis, who you don't seem to've read enough of, said about Argle-Bargle
                        or something. You've been given bits by Lewis on related issues. Why
                        not read through Lewis yourself to find the passage that you want John
                        to produce about something you say John wrote that I can't recall him
                        stating just so as you have it?

                        That's Fosterly, not Fosterian, by the way.

                        As David said yesterday,

                        by "A" you mean,
                        at least in part, (to quote you writing of Mike) "that those who hold
                        beliefs like the pastiche's author can only hold them for _political_, not
                        _moral_, reasons," it's obvious enough to me that Mike claims no such
                        thing. In his words, "the dark subtleties you found it are of your own
                        devise."

                        Go Badgers. Go Spartans. How 'bout them Fighting Illini?

                        That's me, not David.

                        Mike



                        Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                        >I would like to point out, also, how completely specious is the
                        >argument that Mike makes and Lizzie seconds. Let's say that someone
                        >claimed that Lewis believed that God's true name was Argle-Bargle. This
                        >on its surface would strike most of us, I'm sure, as a most unlikely
                        >thing for Lewis to believe. According to the Fosterian School of
                        >Scholarship, however, we are not allowed to ask that person to back up
                        >their claim, by pointing us to evidence for it. Instead, by Mike's
                        >little lecture, we should go off and (re)read everything Lewis wrote,
                        >to see if we can find where the evidence is.
                        >
                        >Does anybody here _not_ think that would be absurd? Why is the case of
                        >John's claim about Lewis any different?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Mike Foster
                        Agreed.
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Agreed.

                          WendellWag@... wrote:

                          >Carl, my apologies for the way that this thread turned out. I didn't mean
                          >it as an attack on you. If anything, I was blaming John for making a pretty
                          >weird claim and then dropping out of the thread. I just think that reading
                          >Lewis is more interesting that arguing about random claims about him.
                          >
                          >Wendell Wagner
                          >
                          >
                          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Walkermonk@aol.com
                          In a message dated 3/27/2005 1:41:38 PM Central Standard Time, mafoster@direcway.com writes: The question was: Have you read any of the three books Lizzie
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 3/27/2005 1:41:38 PM Central Standard Time,
                            mafoster@... writes:
                            The question was:

                            Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?
                            ---

                            No, it wasn't. The question was, upon what is John basing his claims about
                            what Lewis thought or believed?

                            Even I can tell that, and I haven't finished college yet. Please don't try to
                            make me believe that you, a professor, can't tell what Carl is asking.

                            Grace Monk


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Walkermonk@aol.com
                            In a message dated 3/27/2005 1:46:47 PM Central Standard Time, lunacy2@mindspring.com writes: Carl, with all due respect, Lizzie has a valid point. If John
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 3/27/2005 1:46:47 PM Central Standard Time,
                              lunacy2@... writes:
                              Carl, with all due respect, Lizzie has a valid point.
                              If John bases his belief on what Lewis might think of modern
                              issues on his understanding of the books, then it might help you
                              counter his arguments if you read them as well.
                              Likewise, insisting that John cite specific passages or quotes from
                              the books to support his arguments when you haven't read the book in
                              question yourself or the quotations in the context of the whole book
                              doesn't seem logical.
                              ---

                              No she didn't. I have read the books. And I am now curious myself to find out
                              where John gets his ideas about what Lewis thought and believed. So, what is
                              your -- and Lizzie's and Mike's -- answer to me? I've read the books. I don't
                              agree with John. I want to know where John gets his ideas from, specifically.
                              What is wrong with asking such a question? Why is the burden of proof on me
                              and not on the person who made the disputed claims?

                              Grace Monk


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Bill West
                              Precisely. You ve read the books.Therefore, your questioning of John s statements have more validity that Carl s IMHO. I m not supporting anyones position in
                              Message 14 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Precisely. You've read the books.Therefore, your questioning
                                of John's statements have more validity that Carl's IMHO.
                                I'm not supporting anyones position in this other than Lizzie's
                                point that before you engage in a debate over what someone has
                                written you should at least read the books in question.
                                That's all.

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: <Walkermonk@...>
                                To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 4:36 PM
                                Subject: Re: Read the books, THEN gripe Re: [mythsoc] New Screwtape


                                >
                                > In a message dated 3/27/2005 1:46:47 PM Central Standard Time,
                                > lunacy2@... writes:
                                > Carl, with all due respect, Lizzie has a valid point.
                                > If John bases his belief on what Lewis might think of modern
                                > issues on his understanding of the books, then it might help you
                                > counter his arguments if you read them as well.
                                > Likewise, insisting that John cite specific passages or quotes from
                                > the books to support his arguments when you haven't read the book in
                                > question yourself or the quotations in the context of the whole book
                                > doesn't seem logical.
                                > ---
                                >
                                > No she didn't. I have read the books. And I am now curious myself to find out
                                > where John gets his ideas about what Lewis thought and believed. So, what is
                                > your -- and Lizzie's and Mike's -- answer to me? I've read the books. I don't
                                > agree with John. I want to know where John gets his ideas from, specifically.
                                > What is wrong with asking such a question? Why is the burden of proof on me
                                > and not on the person who made the disputed claims?
                                >
                                > Grace Monk
                                >



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                ... Can you not read, Mike? You quoted my answer to that question yourself,
                                Message 15 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

                                  > The question was:
                                  >
                                  > Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?

                                  Can you not read, Mike? You quoted my answer to that question yourself,
                                  right here after your blissfully unaware repetition of it:

                                  > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> On Mar 27, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >>> Have you read any of the three books Lizzie suggests, Carl?
                                  >>
                                  >> No, not yet.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>> They, better than John or me or Wendell or anyone else, would tell
                                  >>> you
                                  >>> what you want to know.
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >>
                                  >> If you believe that, then you have not the slightest idea what I want
                                  >> to know, and have not yourself bothered to go read my posts to learn
                                  >> what in fact I do want to know. So, physician, heal thyself.
                                  >>
                                  >> I want to know _on what basis_ John thinks that Lewis would have
                                  >> thought that abortion and euthanasia could be matters about which
                                  >> Christians could hold legitimate differences of opinion without moral
                                  >> or intellectual fault.
                                  >>
                                  >> I don't have to read any of Lewis's works to doubt that he believed
                                  >> that. I also don't have to go searching through everything Lewis wrote
                                  >> to find support for it (not that I think there is such support in
                                  >> anything he wrote anyways). John made the claim, and I want to know
                                  >> the
                                  >> basis for it. Either he knows something in Lewis's writing upon which
                                  >> he bases his claim, or he does not know of any such support, and is
                                  >> simply projecting his own beliefs onto Lewis.
                                  >>
                                  >> If he continues to ignore my question, I am content to believe that
                                  >> the
                                  >> latter is true, as I do now in the absence of any evidence to the
                                  >> contrary.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>> Happy Easter, by the way.
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >>
                                  >> Thank you! And to you! And to all who read this list.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >> The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                  >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Carl F. Hostetter
                                  ... That s true. Given that Lewis was a devout Christian of his time, and famously so, I know enough about him just from that to have every reason to doubt
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

                                    > And your reply, Carl, was:
                                    >
                                    > I don't have to read any of Lewis's works to doubt that he believed
                                    > that.

                                    That's true. Given that Lewis was a devout Christian of his time, and
                                    famously so, I know enough about him just from that to have every
                                    reason to doubt that he believed that.

                                    At any rate, that was not my question. My question was to know the
                                    basis for John's claim about Lewis. Period.
                                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                                    ... It seems perfectly logical to me. Just as logical as Joan asking people here where to find Tolkien s essay on Beowulf. And as Pat has noted, the response
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Bill West wrote:

                                      > Likewise, insisting that John cite specific passages or quotes from
                                      > the books to support his arguments when you haven't read the book in
                                      > question yourself or the quotations in the context of the whole book
                                      > doesn't seem logical.

                                      It seems perfectly logical to me. Just as logical as Joan asking people
                                      here where to find Tolkien's essay on Beowulf. And as Pat has noted,
                                      the response you offer, to go read Lewis's books, is just a logical an
                                      answer as telling Joan to go reread everything Tolkien wrote, and
                                      she'll find it in there somewhere.

                                      Besides which, doing what you suggest _still_ wouldn't answer my
                                      question. I want to know on what basis _John_ thinks what he thinks.
                                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                                      ... Well, I explained that right at the start of my involvement. Now, if John wants to reply that he didn t mean what I interpret his statement to mean, and
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Mike Foster wrote:

                                        >
                                        > I've been reading these threads as they've been woven as closely as the
                                        > next guy, and I swear to Fudd I cannot recall a passage where John said
                                        > what you, Carl, say he said.

                                        Well, I explained that right at the start of my involvement. Now, if
                                        John wants to reply that he didn't mean what I interpret his statement
                                        to mean, and that he does not in fact believe that Lewis would have
                                        thought that abortion and euthanasia were matters about which
                                        Christians could have legitimate differences of opinion without moral
                                        or intellectual error, then that would be a perfectly acceptable
                                        response as well.

                                        > You want some one to back up a claim based on your perception of what
                                        > Lewis, who you don't seem to've read enough of, said about Argle-Bargle
                                        > or something.

                                        NO, I DO NOT. I want _John_ to explain to me the basis for his claim
                                        (or, if I have misunderstood his claim, to say that he does _not_ in
                                        fact have any reason to believe that Lewis believed as it appears to me
                                        he claimed). That's all.

                                        > You've been given bits by Lewis on related issues. Why
                                        > not read through Lewis yourself to find the passage that you want John
                                        > to produce

                                        Because I don't believe any such passage exists, and I'm not going to
                                        waste my time reading everything Lewis wrote to prove that it doesn't
                                        exist. And because when somebody makes a claim, the burden falls on
                                        _them_ to support it.
                                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                                        ... I see. Well, then I apologize too, Wendell. I m afraid that getting all these beside-the-point responses to what I wrote, and obvious misunderstandings
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          >> Carl, my apologies for the way that this thread turned out. I didn't
                                          >> mean
                                          >> it as an attack on you. If anything, I was blaming John for making a
                                          >> pretty
                                          >> weird claim and then dropping out of the thread. I just think that
                                          >> reading
                                          >> Lewis is more interesting that arguing about random claims about him.
                                          >>
                                          >> Wendell Wagner

                                          I see. Well, then I apologize too, Wendell. I'm afraid that getting all
                                          these beside-the-point "responses" to what I wrote, and obvious
                                          misunderstandings of what I really want to know, from all sides, made
                                          me a bit hasty in my reply to you. For which I am truly sorry.

                                          Cheers,

                                          Carl
                                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                                          ... Exactly. And all I want to know is what foundation John sees for his statements.
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Mar 27, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Bill West wrote:

                                            > For all I know, John's view might not be correct. But at least I
                                            > know he's
                                            > read the books, and so has some foundation for his statements.

                                            Exactly. And all I want to know is what foundation John sees for his
                                            statements.
                                          • Bill West
                                            I see. So then, someone who says they don t need to read the LOTR to discuss Tolkien because they ve seen the Jackson movie would be correct then as well?
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I see. So then, someone who says they don't need to read
                                              the LOTR to discuss Tolkien because they've seen the Jackson movie
                                              would be correct then as well?
                                              Sorry, I fail to see the logic in either that position or yours. For all I
                                              know, John's view might not be correct. But at least I know he's
                                              read the books, and so has some foundation for his statements.
                                              Bill






                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Stolzi
                                              (Peevishly) I still say that ABOLITION OF MAN and THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH are the books to consult on this topic, rather than the ones Lizzie mentioned. So
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Mar 27, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                (Peevishly) I still say that ABOLITION OF MAN and THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH are
                                                the books to consult on this topic, rather than the ones Lizzie mentioned.

                                                So there.

                                                Diamond Proudbrook
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.