--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm glad Judy has found such a fine advocate. Her main point > does not require much memory: She said my interpretation of > the ghost's advice to Hamlet was a "gross misreading." She > has not shown how and why that is the case, and I don't think > she can.
Are you not receiving all the posts, or what? I showed how and why your interpretation was a gross misreading, in detail, in a post I made a little after midnight last night. It's #158676 on the Web site. Sal's post that you're replying to here was made well after that--this morning, in fact--so it can't be that you haven't gotten to mine yet. *And* I had already explained the misreading in an earlier post, #152978, when the topic first came up a few weeks ago. I know you saw that post, because you replied to it in post #152987. In that reply you didn't address anything in my post, however; you just claimed that since I didn't have your "full interpretation," I couldn't evaluate it based on a "snippet." But that "snippet"--i.e., the misreading--was what you were using to justify your notion that "Hamlet's theme can be understood as an elaboration" of II:45 in the Gita. Obviously, if you misread those lines, your whole basis for that interpretation falls apart, as I documented in my post. I responded to your claim about the "snippet" in post #153010 with more about how your interpretation based on that snippet was way off base. You didn't reply to that one at all. > If she cops out because I did not quote her verbatim, > I'll consider it a concession that her statement was > ill-founded. In the first place, your failure to quote had nothing to do with my analysis of your misreading. It had to do with your having misrepresented several different things I'd said in other posts. That's what Sal is commenting on, so apparently *she* saw the post I made last night pointing out those misrepresentations. In the second place, it's not necessary to quote verbatim if you paraphrase accurately. You didn't even do that. Plus which, in your post that I was responding to last night, you made numerous mistakes in citing the play itself, misattributing quotes and getting the sequence of events confused, among other things. Now, if you're unwilling to go to the Web site and look up the posts you either missed or failed to deal with, and provide a response that actually addresses what I wrote, you'll have made it pretty clear that you're unable to do so and are dishonestly trying to avoid confronting your errors.
