What I happened upon...

[Sean Mannion]

I am genuinely sorry, if anyone took offence, or would be likely to take 
offence from my last post. I'm not casting insinuations at anyone here, and 
sorry if my post was taken that way - seeing that sentence from my email in 
isolation, I realize how it looks but please do me the courtesy of putting 
it in context - I said I was concerned by the 'method', and not the 
intentions, of finding out that information.

The last part of my message was meant to come over in a different tone (of 
slight humour) - but, again, it's the method of finding out that information 
that have doubts over - I have no doubts about anyone's intentions - I am 
merely trying to remind you people of how that might look. Is it not 
plausible that other people might be asking the question themselves of why 
no one's clicked that there might be something problematic about searching 
for a teenage person's identity on the internet, regardless of what your 
intentions are?

Admit it, it does sound kinda creepy. And yes, it is an invasion of privacy 
and voyeuristic; you're interested in this kid's band because of who his 
father is (whose attempts to evade the any public spotlight we're all 
undoubtedly aware of); that site is for the kids' friends who might be 
interested in the band - not obssessives of his dad's work. my serious 'deep 
unease' however has more to do with making a teenage kid into a discussion 
topic within the bounds of his father's literary fame/cult-status.

C'mon guys, if pynchon was reluctant enough, and took so many measures to 
ensure a thwarting of cult celebrity in his own right, what chances are 
there to think he'd want his son to be a part of that? I think we should 
respect his wishes, and I think it's that which makes this an invasion of 
privacy.


>To: Sean Mannion <third_eye_unmoved at hotmail.com>, pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: What I happened upon...
>Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 10:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
>
>... okay, back from some actual work here, so ...
>
>Again, no one here has any reason to cast aspersions
>on Judy's motives here.  Or mine, for that matter.  I
>don't think that I have any reason in turn to cast any
>in turn about yours (and I thought we were long past
>having such concerns about Mr. Mackin), but what's
>both more disturbing AND more legally actionable here
>seems to me to be completely unfounded insinuations of
>illegal, or even simply unsavory, activities, or even
>interests, here.  I'm hardly the kind to perpetuate
>the sterotype of the defenseless maiden in need of
>rescuing (much less am I the kind actually to be able
>to rescue anyone), but I hardly think it's out of
>bounds to say that Judy at least deserves an apology,
>esp. given that what little fuss that's been generated
>here so far might more likely have been directed at me
>(not, however, so far as I know, on yr part, Sean) ...
>
>Let's face it, an interset in the lifetsyles of the
>rich and/or famous is hardly unusual these days
>(another chapter of that 1973 Nervous Breakdown book
>that I've been reading, by the way, "Warholism") ...
>
>And the moment simply searching a name is illegal is
>the moment we've crossed over into totalitarianism ...
>
>--- Sean Mannion <third_eye_unmoved at hotmail.com>
>wrote:
> >
> > Which is creepy, voyeuristic, arguably an invasion
> > of privacy, and probably covered by a state law
> > somewhere.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com