GRGR(3) doggerel

[rj]

*Now* I'm reading your post.

> Forgot about that parenthetical portion of the opening paragraph: double
> apologies to Paul.  Nonetheless, I have nowhere suggested that Pointsman is
> porjecting the dog

Nonetheless, I don't believe anyone has said you did. Apologies are
cheap.

> I'm not sure what connection you're making between what Paul has said and
> what you have said.

I think you'll find that we each referred to the surreality of the text.
I think Paul understood what I'd written, and made a connection. I'm
still not sure you do, or have.

> It certainly isn't a radical claim in
> Pynchon scholarship and, again, I agree with it.  I'd much rather hear
> you're take on it and see you apply it to GR rather than to my posts.

'not radical' ... 'your take'
So, you're saying that my reading is unoriginal *and* that I'm only
attacking you? Best to cover *all* the bases, so:

> I think you're getting wrapped up in the language of the discussion.

I'm wrong.

> I think it's the conclusion that can be drawn from the past that Doug's and
> my discussion took, perhaps I'm wrong.

And, I've misread a dialogue and butted in where you would have
preferred I didn't, as well?

> You're impressions are completely mistaken.  

And I'm wrong again.

> And insulting.  

And rude.

> You're
> misreading.

Perhaps deliberately so.

Well, string me up and pull the noose. I thought I was participating in
a discussion, a free and fair exchange of ideas -- obviously not.

This style of hospitality frankly appals me. You've set the fairy cakes
out on the table but you slap the hands of anyone who tries to touch
them. Perhaps "*petty*" was the wrong word after all: supercilious seems
a much better fit. I'll know to trust to first instincts next time. 

[ps I probably wouldn't have bothered with this except for that
disingenuous typo post which came after: 'Hah, haw, I'm human too. Look,
I err. Look at my typos, haw, haw. *And* I'm big enough of a man to
admit it. Haw, haw.']