pynchon-l-digest V2 #2193

[The Great Quail]

Oh, Doug.

Here I was, mostly *agreeing* with what you are saying, and *still* 
you have to act like an offensive prick. I suppose I should have 
expected that, after actually using a bit of exasperated sarcasm on 
you.

>Quail:
><Wow, ok, hey! Some ideas and possible solutions!
>
>All of the alternative solutions I mentioned in my earlier post today have
>been mentioned multiple times in previous posts since September 11, either
>my own or material that I have forwarded to the list.

Yes, but:

(1) It has been so mixed up with hyperbole and hysterics, some of it 
may be lost. Compare that with the fact that so often when asked 
directly for a solution, you ignore the request, or post some 
paranoid non-sequitur.

(2) I confess, I have not read everything you forwarded to the List, 
especially since you've taken on the self-appointed task of editing 
your own Newsletter, which we all seem to be automatically subscribed 
to.

(3) Even if I had read everything you forwarded, there's been a mess 
of conflicting views, and how am I to know which ones you agree with 
until you make such a statement?

(4) Myself and a few others still wonder what "police action is," and 
that has yet to be addressed.

>If you want to have
>a conversation, you might consider paying attention to what the other
>person is actually saying, don't you think?

Thanks, Dad. Can I have my allowance back now?

And you wrote to Terrance:

>Sober up and read the post, I wrote:  "this is the bin Laden view, per his
>video
>statements since September 11".  Need a translation?

Actually, yes. Yes, he does, and I do also, and I bet a few others, 
too. Why? Because of your use of "pissed on" to describe our 
relationship to the Taliban, hardly a neutral statement, and one that 
opens up the notion that you may have sympathies with them. Because 
you increasingly seem to be actually *believing* bin Laden when he 
claims his grievances, showing a stunning lack of appreciation for 
both the man's history amongst the Islamic nations, and his 
capacities as simple manipulator. Because you consistently indicate 
that what we are doing right now is the moral equivalent of what they 
did on the 11th. Because you continually pass along a stream of 
anti-American, anti-Colonial, anti-Western, anti-Imperialism, 
anti-Captitalism, anti-Bush information, showing absolutely zero 
concern for any legitimate opposition to these viewpoints, and 
accusing anyone with opposing sentiments of making the attempt to 
stifle dialogue. And most importantly, because when it comes to 
anything the West has done, especially America, anything at all, you 
turn your vast intelligence upon it to unravel conspiracies, lies, 
distortions, manipulations, crypto-fascist leanings, hidden agendas, 
and sheer bloodlust. And yet -- and yet -- when it comes to turning 
the same restless, skeptical intelligence on bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or 
any non-Western sources, that intelligence suddenly fails, and seems 
to find their goals, claims, and statements pure, direct, and honest, 
and they are reported utterly unopposed and without the slightest 
shred of cynicism or even skepticism.

So that, Doug, is why it is a *very* legitimate question to ask you 
whether or not you are merely *reporting* or *endorsing* Mr. bin 
Laden's statements. It is not because Terrence is drunk; or anyone 
else is a hawk, or because we are stupid. (Although Terrence might 
have been drunk; I don't know.) No: it is the direct result of the 
climate you have created, all on your own, regarding your *own* 
credibility and credulity.

So now, feel free to begin with your accusations that I am shouting 
you down, or accusing you of being the enemy to further demonize you, 
or whatever you need to do to avoid responsibility for your own 
foolishness.

--Quail