appropriate topics for Pynchon-L

[Phil Wise]

Sorry, Terence, I still don't see it.  Perhaps I'm not paranoid enough.  I
certainly think that one of the problems around here is that people read
personal attacks between the lines that just aren't there.  Perhaps this is
a habit we've all taught each other onlist over the years - I don't know.
There is a pynchonian context for adding "anti-fascist" into a statement
about contemporary political discussion, but, as I tried to explain, that
doesn't mean that those on the "opposite side of the fence" are "fascists".

If I'm wrong, forgive my naivity/ lack of reality, whatever.  But I do think
that some slack needs to be cut for what might just be unconsciously clumsy
expression.

I thought Thomas was stirring, and could do without a further escalation of
these silly hostilities.

phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: appropriate topics for Pynchon-L


>
>
> Phil Wise wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Thomas, that would only be the case if you saw the world in terms
of
> > absolute binaries (he's not anti-fascist, so he must be fascist!!).
This
> > doesn't follow, and I doubt Doug meant it that way.
>
>  I have no doubt that Doug called us fascists.
> If you recall, Phil, we got caught in this discussion last time.
> We tried to argue that Capitalism is not equal to fascism.
> We discussed globalization and Fascism.
> We discussed Bush and Nazism.
> All of Doug's posts on these subject, his definitions, his equating Bush
> supporters with Fascist supporters make it very clear what he meant when
> he
> said we were Bush supporters advocating globalization etc.
> He meant to call us fascists. And he will continue to do it and deny it
> as long as we let him.
>