words from the host

[jbor]

monroe implied that jody's comments used an approach which involved

> work[ing] one's way
> DOWN from an assumption of the "genius"

of the author, in this case Pynchon.

This wasn't correct, and I directed him to address his critique to the
participant who does in fact start from such a precept, that is, millison.
monroe had, you'll recall, called for the following:

> And, at any rate,
> again, if anyone wants to invoke such entities, well, please, specify
> what they are assumed to consist of, and specify how any given
> speculation/observation/argument might fly in the face of any such
> assumptions.

I repeated malignD's words simply to reinforce the opinion that much of
millison's argumentation is specious and banal. And, as you'll no doubt
recall, malignD's legitimate and politely-expressed statement of this
opinion was thrown back into his face with rancour by "a participant" almost
instantly.

The fact that millison is incapable of *accepting* criticism is not a valid
reason for ignoring his pronouncements imo.

I'm not sure why you're moved to scream at me again this time, but perhaps
you should check your motives, and the extent of your own participation
here. Discussion seems to have been progressing quite reasonably, millison's
slanderous explosions and your own outbursts excepted.


----------

>From: <keith at pfmentum.com>


> This kind of lowbrow infantile flamebaiting makes me not give a shit
> about the opinions of its author.
>
> When are you guys going to knock it the fuck off?
>
>>>>This latter is in fact one of the millisonian precepts, specious
> and banal as
> those indeed are.<<<
>
>

>
>