punctuation

[MalignD at aol.com]

A few corrections..

Derek Maus waded into an on-going list argument between RJ and Millison in 
which Millison described some of RJ's arguments as echoing the rhetoric of 
holocaust denial, a combustible charge, without merit, a case of innuendo and 
name-calling.  Millison's hobbling defense of this was:

<< I have not called rj a Holocaust denier ... but I have compared the 
evasions, equivocation, and prevarication of rj's quibbling about whether or 
not Dora is a Holocaust locale or if the Dora victims in GR might be 
considered Holocaust victims to the *kind of rhetoric* that Holocaust deniers 
use.>>

RJ responded to Derek Maus in a post as "maus."  Derek Maus responded by 
insisting that "maus" was German slang for Jew, and that calling him "maus" 
was an intended anti-Semitic slight,a dubious claim, given that it is the 
man's name.

In the climate, already slandered with "holocaust denial," RJ's not being in 
a mood to apologize for this charge is understandable, if, indeed, one thinks 
there was something to apologize for (and not that apology might have been 
more appropriate from Derek Maus).

Derek Maus wasn't "taunted" as Millison claims and there is nothing to 
indicate that RJ was having "such fun" doing it.  

As for the lower case "maus," that was consistent with RJ's reference in the 
same sentence to "millison" and to Derek Maus's email address "dmaus."

Does Millison's characterization of this as anti-Semitic taunting amount to 
lying?  I would say yes, by his own use of the term.  

Would one be lying to describe this--

<<And now consider Mackin. I guess he welcomes anti-Semitic epithets in the 
Pynchon-L discussion the way he welcomes anti-American epithets ... He's been 
right in there with the misogynist crowd dumping on Barbara, here he comes 
again with his defense of the anti-Semites ...>>
 
--as Millison calling Paul an anti-Semite?  An anti-Semitic sympathizer?  Is 
crude innuendo an entirely separate case from lying?  Is it different at all?