pynchon-l-digest V2 #2199

[Doug Millison]

'Don Corathers' (that's how your name appears in the From line of my email
program, which copies it thus in replying):
>One of the things that infuriates the people you correspond with on this
>list, Doug, is your apparent conviction that only you are capable of
>mourning the casualties of war.

How do you construct this view?  I've posted nothing to this effect. This
appears to be a personal opinion, and as such welcome to it, but it
corresponds to nothing I've written on Pynchon-L.   It sounds more as if
you disagree with my politics and my interpretations of Pynchon, you don't
like my attitude, so you spin off these intepretations based on your
response to what I've written; this would appear to be the same problem
that Quail is having, given the huge disconnect between what he says I've
written and the actual words sentences and paragraphs of my posts, likewise
with Terrance.  (Malign is little more than a misanthropic troll who
doesn't appear to like anything or anybody on Pynchon-L, with a particular
focus on me; rj/rjackson/jbor/? has done little more than  fuck with one
after another P-lister ever since he/she showed up, with occasional spells
of almost-polite discussion, although he/she keeps the knives sharpened and
at the ready; the others who spew insults in my direction are not worthy of
comment).  If you can show me something I've written that demonstrates
what you call my "conviction that only you are capable of mourning the
casualties of war" please do.  Beginning on September 11, I have
consistenly acknowledged the suffering and grieving of the victims and
their families and all who grieve -- my objection from the start has been
that Bush has railroaded us into a war while people are still grieving and
prone to emotional response, a war that now shows every sign of being
unwinnable, falling pitifully short of  accomplishing the extravagant goals
Bush set -- pushing us into the sort of nightmare that to my ears echoes
Pynchon's War that never ends (and if Pynchon doesn't sound that way to
you, that's fine, too).  I started posting excerpts from news reports and
anti-War commentaries as war-mongers started spewing their  hateful views.

Fact remains, I receive a steady stream of email from P-listers who
appreciate the post-9/11 situation news and commentaries I've been sending
along, and for each Terrance or rj/jbor/rjackson/? or Quail who shouts "no
more war politics on Pynchon-L" (and who would have dreamed such voices
would presume to arrogate to themselves setting such an agenda for a
discussion of the works of Thomas Pynchon?), I see multiple frequent
contributors who appear to have no problem in taking part in  or following
along with (lurking) a discussion that focuses on the war politics and
economics of Pynchon's work.

Terrance has a DELETE button and he can learn how to use it if he so
chooses, and I invite anybody else who wants to do so to go ahead and do
the same.  I do not presume to speak for Pynchon-L, I post what I want to
post, and I'm reporting what people have told me offlist believe it or not,
you can see yourself what people have to say in their posts; but nobody
else speaks for Pynchon-L either, Terrance's "we" and Quail's are offensive
and presumptuous in this respect. In any event, I doubt highly if Terrance
can conduct a discussion of M&D without referring to the actual
geopolitical/socioeconomic/spiritual situation in the world around us,
given how thoroughly Pynchon connects his novel to same, and if that's what
he wants to do, it remains to be seen in Pynchon-L will stampede to join
him.

'Don Corathers'
>On the other hand, if those "folks" had
>the responsibility to eliminate the forces that have killed several thousand
>American civilians and explicitly promised to try to kill the rest of us,
>they might take a different view.

So far the attacks appear to  to have killed only civilians, I haven't seen
any reports Taliban casualities or casualties among bin Laden's network.
You're assuming that Bush and Blair actually can kill the people
responsible for the September 11 attacks, that's a highly debatable
proposition, and it's being debated around the world right now, the opinion
you express here being one of the positions under debate. A number of
credible observers have noted, given the "leaderless resistance" model used
by  terrorists groups around the world -- including domestic US terrorists
-- the people responsible for the attacks may already be dead, with perhaps
a colleague or two still at large, wth the FBI in hot pursuit.  There are
many other possibilities under discussion.  Given the careful management of
news and information by the Bush Administration, the compliance of the US
media, it's very difficult to gather enough information to come to any
clear conclusions, wouldn't you agree?

-Doug

rj/jbor/rjackson/?, I can see that it's keeping you up nights, wondering
which of the many anonymous emailers might be me -- counting those spaces
after periods, etc.  Rest easy, I am not Barbara, I've managed to do just
fine all these years posting as Doug Millison. I haven't had to shift from
one email identity to another as you have done, nor have I had to resort to
spawning a host of anonymous email accounts such as those that rather
consistently chime in to support your side of the various arguments you and
I have had.  Not that there's anything wrong with anonymity per se, I have
had fruitful and fun discussions with quite a few anonymous P-listers over
the years, but if I were you, I'd stop worrying about this and focus
instead on firming up your own identity.





Doug Millison - Writer/Editor/Web Editorial Consultant
millison at online-journalist.com
www.Online-Journalist.com