HOW DO I REMOVE MY NAME FROM THIS LIST???

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Seddon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Cantgo ergo possum physic


> Dear List
>
> I am sure that Professor Surette would have wanted a "not" between the
> "does" and "entail" in the phrase starting "A mention of murder or
> pederasty..."
>
> Rick Seddon
> McIntosh, NM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:25 AM
> Subject: FW: Cantgo ergo possum physic
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: "uwo.onemeg" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Cantgo ergo possum physic
> > Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 10:35 PM
> >
> >
> > Mr.Surette,
> >
> >     I have read your book entirely. I just do not agree with you.
> >     Notice your post came to me not the list, but it seems to be
> addressing
> > the list.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > ----------
> > >From: "uwo.onemeg" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Subject: Re: Cantgo ergo possum physic
> > >Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 7:34 PM
> > >
> >
> > >  Charles Moyer wrote:
> > > "I submit that neither Pound nor Weston were writing with any occult
> > > purpose in mind. If occult implies something secret why would anyone
> write
> > > in order to explain it? This accusation which is the theme of
Surette's
> "The
> > > Birth of Modernism: Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats and the Occult"
> > > smacks of the type of pejorative one would expect of Christian witch
> hunters
> > > although it is never explicitly stated. In whatever way the term
> "occult"
> > > seems to be reduced to definition it always seems to come up meaning
> nothing
> > > but "non-Christian"."
> > >
> > >     I haven't been reading the Pound list postings for some time, but
I
> > > notice that Rick Sedden has brought me into a discussion about Pound
and
> the
> > > Occult.
> > >     I am puzzled by Charles Moyer's "submission." Are we to understand
> that
> > > whatever he submits must be accepted as true? On what does he base his
> > > submission? I can assure you that his submission cannot be supported.
I
> have
> > > published a book demonstrating the contrary, and incidentally explain
> the
> > > apparent conundrum of speaking the unspeakable as well.
> > >     It is clear that he has not read the book of mine to which he
> refers,
> > > since I make no accusations in that study. There are no crimes or
> > > misdemeanours at issue, so far as I am aware -- save, of course,
> > > anti-Semitism and perhaps treason, and I discuss neither in BofM,
though
> I
> > > do discuss the former in a subsequent book.
> > >     I should draw to the list's attention that the passage about
> relativity
> > > and quantum physics from BofM cited in several posts alludes to its
> > > "apparent" irrationality. Occultists exploited that feature to justify
> their
> > > own genuine mooniness -- just as current deconstructors use the
> undeniable
> > > difficulty of those branches of twentieth century physics to justify
the
> > > obscurity of their own pronouncements. In both cases, of course, the
> > > parallel is unjustified. That it is unjustified, however, does not
> discredit
> > > references to the practice. A mention of murder or pederasty does
entail
> > > endorsement of those crimes, as some of the posts appear to assume.
> > >     Finally I cannot determine what the antecedent of "it" is in the
> second
> > > last sentence of Moyer's remark. That is unfortunate since I have been
> > > accused of being guilty of "it" -- whatever it is.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Leon Surette
> > > Department of English
> > > The University of Western Ontario
> > > London, Ont.
> > > N6A 3K7
> > >
> > >
> >
>