move the Pale Fire discussison somewhere else

[Tim Strzechowski]

Thank you, Otto, for being rational in your response to my post and not
turning this into a ridiculously cosmic battle of Good vs. Evil.

Regarding my "burden of proof," I refer you (or anyone who really even cares
about this thread) to two previous posts:

http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0307&msg=82891&sort=date

http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0307&msg=82892&sort=date

Also, thank you for listing the connections that have been found between PF
and GR/Pynchon.  I wasn't aware of those, and now I see those connections.

However, did I specifically state that I wanted the PF read to *leave* the
Pynchon List?  I know I expressed dissatisfaction with the *amount* of
Pynchon connections being made, and likewise stated in response to Keith's
inquiry that, if the Pynchon connections aren't there, then why are we
having this reading on the P-list, but please don't claim that I'm on an
aggressive pursuit to eliminate the Pale Fire reading from the List. I
appreciate it.

If you feel that Doug is on such a pursuit, then by all means address it
with him.  I happen to agree with him on the disproportionate amount of
Pynchon connection being explored by the PF readers.  I'm sorry if the fact
that at least one person on this list agrees with Millison threatens or
upsets a few people.  Address my content, not my alliances.

Again, I appreciate it.

Tim Strzechowski

I would prefer not to address this thread onlist any more.  Ultimately, it's
a dead issue and wasted bandwidth and we all know it.  I'll discuss it
offlist if people need to further the discussion.  Otherwise, I'm done.