hoaxes [Pynchon's "Knewspeak"]

[davemarc]

> on 19/2/03 9:00 AM, davemarc at davemarc at panix.com wrote:

> > When jbor wrote of applying the "Gullibility Test" to Richard Romeo's
post,
> > he began by stating, "Consider the
> > source of the 'scoop' (Dickie Montague)."
> >
> > The suggestion that Richard might not be a trustworthy source of
information
> > was way out of line.  I challenge anyone on this list to come up with
even
> > one good reason to doubt Richard, the "source."

Then jbor responded:
>
> He's a big boy. I'm sure he doesn't need you to hold his hand.
>
Holding hands with Richard?  I'm just applying the kind of "Gullibility
Test" that jbor himself claims to wield.

The test results:  No one--not even jbor--has provided any basis supporting
jbor's suggestion that Richard might not be trustworthy.

A healthy skepticism is a good thing.  Concerns about hoaxing are
understandable on this mailing list.  But nothing about skepticism or
concerns about hoaxing justifies baseless swipes at subscribers. In
this case, it only makes jbor look unneighborly. He accurately writes that
pynchon-l is "constantly swamped by misinformation, attempted hoaxes and
dumb troll-games," but that hardly justify his nastiness toward Richard,
which in itself could be said to constitute misinformation and attempted
hoaxing.

Perhaps jbor believes that, as Morris Bender sez, "A skeptic is a person
who, when he sees the handwriting on the wall, claims it is a forgery."  I'm
more partial to George Santanaya, who besides being an outstanding guitarist
(just hoaxing, foax), wrote, "There is a kind of courtesy in skepticism.  It
would be an offense against polite conventions to press our doubts too far."

d.

PS:  I do agree with jbor that that the misspelling of "foreword" doesn't
inspire confidence.  As for Pynchon "seemingly up and jumping publishing
ships" being an alarm bell, that strikes me as probably another red herring.
It's simply a foreword, not a book contract.