answering Doug.3

[Terrance]

"barbara100 at jps.net" wrote:
> 
> For God's sake! don't go look it up.  It wasn't but a minute ago you said we'd all been wasting our precious literary time defending ourselves against one another.  Let it go!  Get back to Pynchon, why don't'cha, and and answer my feminist question. I really wanna know! If I'm full of shit in my misogynistic reading of you, then tell me so! (But don't forget to explain why.)

I guess I should turn the other cheek and look in the mirror and see the
beam in my own eye,  as Dave Monroe suggested. But there are some things
in Doug's post I feel I need to address. 

 For a long time Doug applauded my posts. He had no difficulty
understanding what I was saying. For the most part he agreed with me. I
agreed with a lot of what Doug posted here. Doug's interest in Pynchon
is almost exclusively  a political one. As I've stated, Doug's politics
are not radically different from my own. I disagree with his methods
more than his POV. When we discussed GR here, Doug commended me
frequently, that is,  as long as I posted political stuff. Most of the
political stuff I posted added textual support, inter textual support, 
secondary source support for Doug's superficial and thin posts. This was
particularly the case with regard to the GR character Blicero/Weissmann.
Doug's protracted and
nasty fight with rj dominated the discussion. I was more in agreement
with Doug than rj. For a while I focused on genre and I critiqued the
postmodernist and deconstructist  readings of Pynchon. Doug applauded me
even when he obviously failed to understand what I was talking about.
Doug is not much up on Lit-crit, but this didn't prevent him from trying
to use my posts as a  foil in his protracted holocaust fight with rj. I
turned to religion. The resistance to reading Pynchon as a "religious"
writer was here long before I got here. I found it almost impossible to
argue my position. I didn't do a very good job. However, I attribute
some of this failure to the resistance that was present here because of
the way Doug had polarized and framed the debate on this issue. I
complained that I was being squeezed into Doug's "religious writer"
reading, but it was no use. We simply couldn't get passed the definition
or characterization of what a "religious writer" in the postmodern epoch
is.  Long ago, Doug gave up on discussing Pynchon's texts. He has not
hosted a
section of any novel since I've been here and he never provides much
that is very useful and helpful for those reading Pynchon books. But I
tire of revisiting the pynchon-l past. Who the hell cares. It's
entertainment and this post is boring. There is nothing wrong with a
good 
fight. Nothing wrong with a little jab, a little Ali shuffle. But Doug
will toss 
sand in your face and kick you in the balls as he marches on for peace.  

One more point and I let it go. Doug is nearly obsessed with discovering
the identities of anonymous P-listers, particularly rj/jbor and MalignD.
They don't need me to tell them that they should guard their identities,
anything personal and  private from Doug.
Doug knows enough about me and my family to know that when he said the
WTC was insured I would take it personally. He says he sent money to 
fund counseling for victims of the 9/11 attack. Why did we need to know
that? 
This was a low blow, after the bell. And this is how low Doug will stoop
if you disagree with him.