--- On Sun, 24/10/10, Richard Henninge <RichardHenninge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If there's any redemption in fair play, tit-for-tat, and an > immediate comebacker correction, you probably meant "Raymond > Carver" in the subject line of your subsequent "Jane > Austen..." post. No, I meant "John Carver" but I was probably confusing him with Raymond Cheever. Unlike the tree/bread confusion, this mistake is easily enough made as they were both neurotic men, narcissistic, egocentric, friendless, and so deeply involved in their own defensive illusions that they each invented a manic-depressive wife as they battled with the bottle. While under the influence at the Iowa Writers' Workshop, it is said they themselves frequently mistook themselves for each other, and were only saved from almost certain ego-death by only one being bi-sexual, the other of no fixed orientation whatsoever. As to "tit-for-tat", I am unsure if there's any redemption in it but it has been shown by game theory to be among the best Evolutionarily Stable Strategies, although "two-tits-for-a-tat" is generally better. I am not making this up. Donal ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html