pynchon-l-digest V2 #2199

[Don Corathers]

With apologies to the list. I will stop. I never should have started. I
should be spending this time reading M&D, and that is what I will do as soon
as I finish this post.


> >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.

You apparently are also oblivious to the fact that words carry more freight
than their literal meaning (odd blind spot, for someone who has been on the
p-list all this time). No, you did not say explicitly that I was showing
callous disregard for civilian casualties, but the *implication* of your
constant waving of the bloody shirt is that the people you're talking to are
not troubled by the deaths of innocent Afghans. I'm offended by that.


It sounds more as if
> you disagree with my politics

I think it would surprise you to learn how much we agree on. Maybe not.


you don't
> like my attitude,

Ten-four on that, buddy.


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.

This is called projection.


> 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.

A fabulously bizarre assumption even for you.


 it's very difficult to gather enough information to come to any
> clear conclusions, wouldn't you agree?

Yes. I am especially confused by this slothrop666 business. Can you explain
it?

Don