A substantial group reading of V.

[Dave Monroe]

The decline of this list aside--I simply just wouldn't know--I agree.  However,
that shouldn't be a source of anxiety or resignation, but rather an incentive to
get back on track.  You don't HAVE to read everything, you don't HAVE to respond
to everything.  At any rate, if anyone has a problem with there being a lack of, I
don't know, close reading, serious discussion, relevance, whatever, well, one
might gently suggest taht they provide a little, perhaps even a lot of, something
along those lines.  Am working on it, myself, hope you all don't mind ...

Paul Mackin wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Dave Monroe wrote:
>
> > ... well, if it's close readin' you want, then maybe it's close readin' ye
> > should post.  Being new to this list, I of course wouldn't know if "the good
> > old days" were as "good" as they're being made out to be here, but, again
> > (again ...), it does seem as if no small amount of time and/or energy is
> > being expended trading insults, time and/or energy that could be spent
> > setting an example instead.
>
> It's a well known fact that the p-list has never been as good as it used
> to be. (cake tomorrow but never today)
>
> The p-list is just text generating more text (as is text's wont). As
> rj likes to remind us text will be different upon each reading by each
> individual reader.  So if the text-that-is-the p-list  can be said to be
> good or bad, better or worse than it used to be, this can be so only in
> relation to a particular reader.
>
> To this reader it's about the same as it's always been.
>
>                         P.
>
>