Open Letter to Doug and Friends

[The Great Quail]

Doug writes,

>Great post, Quail.

Thank you! I appreciate the kind words.

>Nice that you chose to leave out the
>obscenities, unlike in your private email to me in the
>past.

I didn't think that you warranted any "obscenities" this time. But 
trust me, I have no compunctions about using them, in private or 
public. (Note to List: In the past, I have called Doug nasty names 
off-list.) Our past correspondence has taught me, however, that:

1. You have no qualms about using off-list mail for on-list purposes; and
2. Any open display of angry or contemptuous emotion such as "Fuck 
you, Doug," or "That Doug is a real wanker and probably has carnal 
relations with chickens" or so on merely provides you with 
ammunition, and jacks up your moral high chair even a few more 
notches. So what's the point of getting my Irish up? It only 
increases the Doug Smugness Factor to insufferably high levels.

>Silly me, to bring Pynchon up on Pynchon-L, asking
>that we consider trying to relate the current war
>mongering/flag waving climate in the U.S. to what
>Pynchon has written about the War that never ends,

What I am objecting to is your constant use of your interpretation of 
Pynchon as an acid test, branding your opponents with something akin 
to intellectual apostasy if they disagree.

And for the record, Pynchon is just a guy. A fucking *great* writer 
with some deep insights, but I do not agree with every moral 
conclusion he makes. He has an opinion, just like any other writer. I 
for one do not feel the need to consult GR or M&D for a guide on how 
to react to this situation. (That is not to say Pynchon's insights 
have no currency for the situation; but like all art, they represent 
just one perspective.)

>critique of Reagan-Bush politics in Vineland, his
>attack on imperialism/colonialism in M&D -- all three
>novels (not to mention V. and COL49) which speak
>directly to the current Situation.

Perhaps, though many would disagree as to the magnitude and relevance 
of certain points. But when you are met with disagreement, you get 
increasingly more shrill and strident, and it is that tone that runs 
many on this List the wrong way.

>You may have missed the posts where I mentioned that I
>have family and friends in Manhattan,

I have not missed that -- nor do I see why my letter needs to take 
that into account? For the record, though, and I mean this, I am glad 
they are safe, and I hope that they are dealing with this well. It's 
been rough out here.

>  close to "Ground
>Zero" (and you gotta love that military terminology
>that the government and press have applied to the site
>of great human tragedy).

Doug, this is a tragedy, yes. But it was not an accident. This was 
not a mistake, it was not even the random act of one or two 
nut-cases. This was an attack -- as you yourself say in a later 
paragraph. And therefore, Ground-Zero is a very appropriate term to 
use. (May I also remark it is applied to the site of any disaster, 
even natural ones?)

Again, Doug -- we were deliberately *attacked.* As we were in the 
past by the Jihad, and will be again. Even if we as a nation wage 
massive peace and gather around a big tree exchanging gifts and 
singing anti-War songs, the jihad will continue.

The use of military terminology is appropriate because this was an 
act of war. These people consider themselves holy soldiers.

>  Just today, I pointed to a
>web site where people can donate $ that wlll go
>directly to pay for counseling services for victims of
>the attacks -- I don't recall anybody else pointing
>out such a resource, but perhaps I missed it.

Sigh. Yes, Doug, you get a gold star. I for one know you are canny 
enough to mix a few items like that into your rhetoric . Boy oh boy, 
you are certainly quick enough to point it out, yes?

>In the face of a barrage of posts that seek to
>perpetuate the flag waving and echo the drumbeats to
>war, I have excerpted and pointed to a variety of
>alternative voices that seek to understand the
>complexities of the current situation, and which,
>consistently, call for non-violent solutions that
>promise hope for lasting peace & justice.

I accept that, and mentioned so in my post. Your tone, sense of 
appropriateness, and holier-than-thou attitude are all wearying, 
though, and that's what I tried to get across. Pointlessly, I know. I 
mean, you can't even argue about a sentence from a novel without 
offending people, let alone something this big and multi-faceted.

>Obviously,
>you and a few others bring your own interpretations to
>these posts and to the voices I have thus brought to
>the attention of the P-list.  I won't spend any time
>at all defending the practice of opening a discussion
>to a broad spectrum of viewpoints.

Yes, I disagree with most of your ideas. I think appeasement in this 
situation is dangerous, I think we need to use force to eliminate 
terrorists, and I think we may need to tighten up national security 
for a bit in order to protect ourselves. I am currently flying an 
American Flag from my apartment, because I am indeed proud to be a 
part of this crazy country, and I feel a sense of national pride in 
the wake of this attack. You mock this, and I accept that as your 
valid opinion. In no way at all am I trying to close down, or even 
moderate, any discussion. All of us are quite familiar with this bit 
of Doug-rhetoric, where you accuse your opponents of trying to halt 
an open discussion, when all we are doing is either disagreeing with 
you, or slapping your wrists for acting like a putz.

I also think all these "warlike" things in full knowledge that we 
helped create this situation, and I hope that we do eventually find 
better policies than supporting lunatics merely because they are the 
enemies of our enemies. And yes, I also know about the elephant in 
the room, but until I am ready to live off the grid, I recognize that 
I am complicit in our need for oil, and I accept that responsibility. 
It's all part of the moral ambiguity of living in the real world, in 
the heart of Empire.

>Speaking of taking this occasion to grind a personal
>axe or two, I note that you and the handful of others
>who take this opportunity to excoriate me seem to have
>a personal axe or two to grind as well -- you make
>this quite clear in your post.

Well, in as far as your personality and the grating way that you 
express yourself is an axe of mine, then yes, I suppose I'll grind 
that every time I disagree with your tone.

>Offlist, of course, a large number of people have
>continued to urge me to continue to post what I've
>been posting.

Yeah, yeah, and you think that David Morris doesn't have an in-box 
full of support, too? Or that my letter didn't generate a spate of 
private "right ons?"

But that's besides the point -- I am not telling you to stop posting. 
I was calling attention to why the style of your postings make people 
-- including me -- angry.

>They are perhaps less accustomed to
>having the wanna-be list moderators telling the rest
>of us what to post and how to post it.

Another classic Doug-tactic: accusing everyone else of trying to be a 
moderator.

>So, thanks for the feedback.

Sure! No problem! I am always happy to give you feedback on your postings.

>  You didn't like what I
>posted to the P-list a few years ago, and you don't
>like it now.  Anything else new?

You know, you really sound like a little kid sometimes. You should 
edit what you send out, you really are your own worst enemy.

--Quail
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
http://www.TheModernWord.com

Better hope deferred than none. Up to a point. Till the heart starts to sicken.
Company too up to a point. Better a sick heart than none. Till it 
starts to break.
So speaking of himself he concludes for the time being,
For the time being leave it at that.
      --Samuel Beckett, "Company"