"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Dave Monroe]

Y'all are overreacting here.  However anyone has
emphasized this here, and whatever aspersions they
might (or might not have, as has largely been the
case) have cast on those dissenting, the fact remains,
it's hardly a great stretch to read those "wartime"
passages as alluding to the destruction of the WTC and
its aftermath.  And the plausibility/probability of
said reading only increases as the "Foreword"
progresses, and Pynchon's potshots become rather less
than cryptic (those DOD/DOJ remarks, for example). 
All this bickering about "bad writing"--or, for that
matter, "bad reading"--is beside the point, a
distraction.  But really, it's only been here, and
among a handful of y'all at that, that I've seen
anyone NOT make that connection.   Like it never would
have occured to any of you as at least a possibility? 
The sheer amount of argument generated on the topic
here suggests otherwise.  Dismiss it however you will,
it remains nonetheless.  Okay, back to deleting ...

--- jbor <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> This was Paul Nightingale's argument too, that
> people who don't read it your way are deficient as
> readers.... 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com