Jeff

When I joined the list I got a nice message telling me how to operate with
the list.

I quote:
You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF EPOUND-L" command
to [log in to unmask]

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Eskew" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: HELP!


> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>