_GR_, 2001

[Henry Mu]

I give up, MD. I thought otherwise, but something is freaking you out so
much that you have become either unable to reason or, perhaps worse,
dishonest. When you write "I'm not leaving out the context.  I'm responding
to you who knows the context." and send it to the list, that strikes me as
dishonest. That you are unable to understand the simple analogy that I've
created, even though a number of HS students understand it... Well, it
actually saddens me. No irony intended.

Is is something in the food? This list used to be much more reasonable. I'm
not suggesting vegetarianism, but maybe ease up on the meat and try to take
it easy on the hormones.

----- Original Message -----
From: <MalignD at aol.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: _GR_, 2001


<MD wrote (leaving out all context):


You seem ever troubled to distinguish actual from not, even when the

conjecture is your own.  Innocent of "an atrocious" hypothetical crime?  I'd

have to say yes to that.>>

I'm not leaving out the context.  I'm responding to you who knows the
context.

<<Must be nice to be a believer. Are you that certain of "the actual?" If I
have learned anything from pomo, it is to question certainty.>>

Are you serious?  There is no "certainty" being questioned.  There is a
hypothetical and inapplicable example being tossed out by you.

<>If you can accept that we, the USA and al-Qaeda, are dealing in beliefs,

then actual innocence isn't the point here. >>

I don't have any idea what this means.

<<A unilateral star chamber has found him guilty. >>

So your point is that bin-Laden should be held to the standards of the US
courts of law, assigned a pro bono lawyer should he lack funds, etc. before
we proceed against him?

Pardon my lack of decorum, but you're a fool.