pynchon-l-digest V2 #1936

[Doug Millison]

When "jbor" says "simply not true" all you usually have to do is go 
to the archives and find the post where he/she in fact said what 
he/she's currently denying.  I did that the other day (reproduced 
from the archives the post in which "jbor" did indeed repeat his/her 
absurd claim that the Dora slaves were not Holocaust victims, the 
claim that "jbor" was swearing up and down he/she never made, and 
indeed there it was in the archives) to make this very point.

If you erase words from or otherwise revise my posts -- or Dave 
Monroe's or anybody's -- you can indeed make it appear as if we've 
said whatever you want to assert, and that has clearly been the case 
here, again and again, on the part of "jbor" and his/her defenders. 
Everybody who hasn't automatically agreed with "rjackson/rj/jbor" has 
seen this interlocutor play fast and loose with the words we've 
actually posted in our arguments with him/her -- Dave is only the 
most recent victim.  And we've all seen a small band of P-listers 
parrot "jbor's" views and attack "jbor's" targets, to the point of 
drowning out any intelligent discussion of the issues in question.

I like what somebody said here recently, when he called "jbor" a 
"dishonest bastard".  "Dishonest" (in addition to "jbor"s perpetual 
mischaracterizations of and outright lies about what others have 
actually posted) in the sense that "rjackson/rj/jbor" changes his/her 
views as necessary to keep a disagreement going -- several of you 
have expressed surprise that "rjackson/rj/jbor" initially agreed with 
my *suggested* reading of GR's opening as an evacuation of Holocaust 
victims and only later flip-flopped.   Many similar examples could 
illustrate the way "jbor" uses this tactic to keep a disagreement 
bubbling.  Starting the argument all over again from scratch is 
another of "jbor's" favorite tactics,  as "jbor" has done in the past 
few days with his renewed quibbles about what is or isn't the 
Holocaust and who is or isn't a Holocaust victim.

By the way, Dave, it wasn't Hollander that "jbor" hit with 
anti-Semitic mud -- Derek Maus was on the receiving end of "jbor's" 
anti-Semitic slurs. That's in the archives, too, along with Derek's 
scathing response to "rj/rjackson/jbor" in the face of those 
anti-Semitic slurs. Deny it if you wish, "jbor", but you made those 
slurs, and you were called on it at the time.

It is also certainly true that "jbor /rj/rjackson" accused Hollander 
and me of hacking into his/her computer, lunatic accusations that 
"jbor /rj/rjackson" passed around to quite a few people offlist, 
including a person that "jbor /rj/rjackson" was hoping, and may still 
hope for all I know, to influence positively with regard to an 
article "jbor/rj/rjackson" was then peddling.






>
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:37:36 +1000
>From: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>
>Subject: Re: peated point of contention here ...
>
>>  I reserve the right to correct any false accusations you choose to make,
>>  however.
>
>Such as these. Simply not true.
>
>
>on 7/15/01 5:54 PM, Dave Monroe at davidmmonroe at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>  I'm sure Hollander will be touched by your admiration
>>  here, esp. after all those accusations of hacking into
>>  your computer and the antisemitisms you apparently
>  > levelled at him.
>
-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>