humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 15, 1:20=A0pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:09=A0pm, "Paul Crowley"
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > "John Andrews" wrote in mes=
sage
>
> >news:4a924499-ec38-4b49-a405-52be91dbcbd5@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...=

>
> > > Crowley provides a study in disingenuous argument. He has a monotonous=

> > > bag of tricks - rhetorical flummery - which he juggles with.
>
> > Andrews has one main trick -- ignore the
> > words of the person you are trying to
> > criticise. =A0You can then distort freely, and
> > invent all manner of nonsense.
>
> > > Reversal is one
>
> > Reversal of what?
>
> > > - accusing you of not having any ideas (which you clearly have,
> > > although I disagree with them)
>
> > Lynne CLAIMED that she had changed her
> > ideas (in particular on the Sonnets) but was
> > unable to mention a single one.
>
> No, I was unwilling to, as I noted anything that I thought was novel
> to me as we went through them, and I haven't the energy to go through
> all over again right now, especially as it goes in one of your ears
> and out the other without being processed in the middle.
>
> L.

Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
he disagrees as either?

--Bob G.