[Fwd: Re: Puzo's source for the Godfather (not a flame)

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

And here is where that Pearl of Wisdom's really seems apt. Commenting on a comment 
to a comment about yet an earlier comment.  Whew!  But,  IMO, it is clearly David D.'s
post which incites to flamness.  PeterG, perhaps somewhat disingenuously, but  
acting properly, merely states his intention to do legitimate research on a claim which, he
 argues, might shed light on Pynchon scholarship.  His chain of reasoning seems 
legitimate; why is he to be attacked for doing this and letting the list know?  Would we 
object if the parties involved were different people?  Calling someone's assertion of 
non-agression *bullshit*, as the initial word in one's reply no less, seems like a not very 
useful way to express disagreement with the issue itself.

Why do I feel the need to add that there is no hostile intention to anyone in this post.  Do
 we start to rate our posts now: e,g,  40% fuzzy/60% flame?  Do we put the ratio in our 
subject headers?

john m
****************************
David D. writes:

>Bullshit.
>This a continuation of your juvinile efforts to attack Jule's
>charactor.
>Are you doing all of this on "company time"?
>Don't forget that all of your messages are date-stamped and archived
>on the web for all the world (and your boss) to see.
>DD
>
>