GR '(S)tree(t)s'

[jbor]

on 17/4/03 11:39 AM, s~Z at keithsz at concentric.net wrote:

> This post of yours, in the aftermath of Terrance's critique, is the most
> interesting thing you've posted about this passage.

I was actually responding to Scott's post. Insults and blather I ignore for
the most part.

> It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the pedestrian generalizations
> about agnosticism and dismalmissal and whatever that you were going on about
> without really saying anything of significance about the specifics of the
> imagery of the text. Prior to this post everything you were saying was drab,
> general, and lifeless. You can make fun of tingling spines and fairy tales
> all you want, but literature and literary criticism without an understanding
> of such is a sterile prosaic bore.

Gee, thanks again. I don't really understand why you're getting so bitter
and twisted about this. It's like you don't agree with my interpretation but
you can't say why so you need to drag it down to this level of personal
abuse all the time. Just delete my posts, or filter them.

best