Last letter about Doug, honest.
The Great Quail
quail at libyrinth.com
Fri Oct 5 03:32:27 CDT 2001
If you are sick of these quibbles, please delete. However, I promise
this is my own last response to this particular issue.
I thought about just dropping this, but I just had a few cups of
coffee, and Barbara's post made me realize that perhaps I could do
some good by actually responding to Doug's response. Also, like it or
not, something was started, and I feel it best to have closure and
move on. Therefore, because I do not want to get involved in yet
another progressively spiralling flame war with Doug, this will be my
last letter of this kind, and if Doug wishes, he may have the final
word. In fact, rather than addressing Doug -- I am afraid that's
pointless -- I would just as soon talk *about* his letter, attempting
to highlight the various distortions. Doug is very good at
manipulating language. Maybe, just maybe, Barbara will read what I
write and realize that I am not the person Doug thinks I am, and Doug
is not the knight in shining armor he may seem to be.
And as an aside to the new List members who are undoubtedly wondering
who the hell I am, I actually am a huge Pynchon fan, and M&D is my
favorite of his novels. I am looking forward to getting into more
literary discussions, but I am afraid I have to trouble the List
first with this closing letter to this vicious circle.
Here we go:
>I get it that you and a few others don't like the "tone" of some of my
>posts, and you few have mentioned this before. You don't seem to like the
>tone of people I've quoted, either, who analyze and critique the current
>situation from points of view other than that of the Bush Administration.
Notice the tactic: Doug places "tone" in quotes, then makes a leap
to imply that I feel the same way about x, y, and z. Doug frames the
statement to make it seem that my argument about tone is really an
argument about the *content* of posts that "analyze" and "critique"
other points of view. This shifts my argument and makes me look like
a bad guy who is against dissension against the Bush Administartion
as well as the tools of logical reasoning. And yet again, Doug paints
himself as the victim, the underdog, the voice of reason and freedom
and multi-pluralism.
>I'm glad in one sense that you have the oppotunity to address me as you do
>in this forum. Not many of us have the option of telling people in our
>lives all the things we don't like about them and that we wish they would
>just go away. If the P-list is a safe place for you to get that out of
>your system, then I'm glad you have this outlet. I'm glad I have a DELETE
>button so I can turn off the people I get tired of.
Hmmm.... So let's see, first we start off with a bit of patronizing,
which is par for the course with Doug. Indeed, I accept and even have
a weird fondness for it. Then he implies that I wish he would just go
away, which is not true. In fact, I read every one of his posts, even
the forwarded URLs, because I believe I need to test my own opinions
by holding them against dissenting views, In fact, I even allow my
own opinions to be occasionally changed by this. So in one way, Doug
helps me out. But back to his statement. After implying that I wish
he would go away, Doug then insults me with his Pynchon List comment.
He makes the assumption that because I addressed him regarding his
annoying habits, I must obviously have a need to do this in real life
in a broader sense; as if it were my problem in general rather than a
specific response to him. Then of course he makes what I assume is a
threat, which is odd considering he admits to be "glad in one sense"
that we have this dialogue.
>At Ground Zero, I understand it may be difficult to
>listen or hear much
Note that he uses "listen and hear," words which imply I have a
willful deficit in my perception; the clever thing is by starting it
with "At Ground Zero" it almost seems like he is being understanding
or making allowances.
> -- although what I hear from the friends and family I
>have in Manhattan is not a call for war or for more innocent people to be
>killed or maimed, to the contrary, they want peace and justice.
There's the punch -- *I* cannot "listen or hear much," but Doug's
friends and family obviously have the superior capabilities. After
all, despite also being near Ground Zero, they don't seem to have any
problems listening and hearing. Why? Because they have made what Doug
deems the *correct* decision. It also implies again that my belief
that military action may be effective is synonymous with the desire
to see innocent people killed or maimed, and is somehow *not* part of
a call for justice. Therefore yet again, rather than having an
intellectually derived opinion of my own, I am demonized and made to
seem against peace, life, and justice. Doug is subtle, clever, and
insidious.
>I'm still surprised that bringing alternative voices into this discussion
>causes such distress.
Doug keeps repeating something about his opponent that is patently
untrue, as if repetition will somehow form reality. A very standard
rhetorical trick. We all of course know that alternative voices are
welcome, and any distress caused is being emoted by "both sides" in
this issue. But of course, Doug's distress is implied to be the
correct response to the rest of us moral cretins, and is therefore a
positive value, whereas the distress others may feel regarding
notions of extreme pacifism is actually a negative value -- distress
at the notion of pluralism itself!
>It's a bit difficult to follow all of your windy screed, but at some point
>you seem to be questioning my love of this country and its culture.
Rather than posting actual samples where I do this (because I
certainly do NOT question Doug's love for his country or culture, I
merely indicated that he has a hatred for the government which makes
him occasionally use the US in negative terms) Doug avoids facts by
claiming my "windy screed" was hard to follow, which gives him
licence to make any assumptions he wishes.
>You're off
>base in this respect, probably because you are ignorant of so many facts
>about my life.
Actually, Doug is wrong. I am rather familiar with Doug's Web site,
and I know he was a veteran. I am only ignorant of facts that Doug
has never revealed in an open forum, be it this site or his Web
resume. Bt to be fair, he probably didn't remember that I had been to
his site, we last had discussions two years ago.
>Speaking of being trapped in the 60s: the general rhetorical move that you
>and some others have made here, to try to stifle analysis of what the U.S.
>has done and may do from points of view other than the
>U.S.-Might-Makes-Right and the call for blood revenge,
1. No one here is trying to stifle any points of view. More of Doug's
typical paranoid rhetoric.
2. By typifying military action as "blood revenge" Doug gains the
semantic high ground and again manipulates the argument.
> that's precisely
>what the "America, love it or leave it" crowd had to say back then.
As far as I recall, no one here has even come close to adopting that rhetoric.
>But, it
>remains true now, as it was then, that a person can love this country and
>also criticize its faults, and take actions to help the country better live
>up to its ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice.
Note to Doug: I agree 100%. I am a big critic of this country,
especially the Republicans. And yet I love her with all my heart.
>So, Quail, help yourself to whatever points of view you wish to entertain
>or encourage. I'll continue to take advantage of the civil liberties we
>still enjoy in this country, and I'll express the opinions that I choose to
>express.
And Dog closes with more paranoia, further depicting himself as the
Lone Voice of Reason as the wolves try to shut him up. And nowhere in
this letter has he addressed any of the real issues my first letter,
or my second reply, brought up.
Finished,
--Quail
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list