Ethical Diversions

[Paul Mackin]

On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Dave Monroe wrote:

> When Robt. gets bitchy, it's about me or Milliosn.  He
> isn't so reckless with anyone else.  Again, this all
> fell into EXACTLY the typical pattern, with us left to
> have THIS discussion as well.  Why Robt. gets
> hysterical at the mere mention of the Holocaust vis a
> vis Pynchon, I don't know, but nor do I impute any
> sinister sympathies to him, either, so ...


Understandably he may tend to pick easy targets. Millison was
a classic example with that "kick me" sign he wore around. None
of us could resist the challenge for very long.

The message i would like to convey to you is that the negativity you
periodically perceive toward your person is not--as far as i know--a
conspiracy or cabal. It's obvious to me at least that the various  
disturbers
of your tranquility have no common motive. For one thing they are so  
widely
dispersed along the p-opinion and general temperament axes  that mostly
they hardly have the time-of-day to  give each other.

As the Warren report might have put it, the situation irking you at the
moment is not an organized conspiracy, but the work of lone,
noncollaborative, quite independent operators.

And as Groucho said, any organization   . . . . .


>
> --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 16, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Dave Monroe wrote:
>>
>>> Usual pattern.  I post something,
>>
>> Nine times out of ten it's about you, isn't it?
>
> Again, see above ...
>
>>> Robt. gets sniffy
>>
>> Least of his problem.
>
> Well, it's actuallu the WORST of mine here, so ...
>
>>> about it, then disappears back behind teh curtain
>>> whilst David and, alas, Paul at least attempt to
>>> do his dirty work for him.
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed Paul and Robt. dispise
>> each other.
>
> Are you taklking about yrself in the third person
> here?  Just so there's no misunderstanding ...
>
>>> It doesn't have to be this way, esp. when it
>>> comes down to simply bringing to the List's
>>> attention legitimate scholarship.
>>
>> You wouldn't know it if you saw it.
>
> Now, when I'm insulting, I'm ridiculosuly, perhaps
> even entertainingly so.

And so am I.  if I really thought for a moment you weren't
a very bright person I would not have spoken as I did.

But I don't see anything wrong with lighting into you
for posting that bit of what ever it was a day or so
ago.


> In my Daffy Duck mode, if you
> will.  Hopefully so y'all'll recognize that I'm not
> really a mean guy.  But one thing i'd never do, at
> least purposefully, is accuse anyone of a lack of
> intelligence.  Esp. not here.  But I don't care how
> many years (life, school, whatever) some of y'all
> might have on me, I've never felt for a moment
> inferior here.  Nor superior.  We're a smart bunch,
> this here Pynchon List.  But one thing I'm fairly
> certain of, I've done a lot more "academic" reading
> than many, if not most.  Lit crit, history,
> anthropology, film, music, pop culture, science, what
> have you (philosophy, though, being perhaps a
> comparitively weak area for me).  The "good," the
> "bad," the "ugly," the whatever ...
>
> Menwhile, one thing I don't do as a rule is bicker
> with something I not only haven't even read, but don't
> even have at hand so's I can at leats jump right in
> ...
>
>> You're all heart, Dave.
>
> I do and do and do for you kids ...
>
>>> But, dammit, it's uncomfortable up here ...
>>
>> Up where? Where are you? Wave or something.
>
> How many fingers am I holding up?  Okay, then ...
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com