What I happened upon....

[Sean Mannion]

Alright,


>My point being, Judy found something interesting, a
>few of might have simply said, yeah, that IS
>interesting, here's maybe something else, and taht
>would have been it.  Had not people started saying,
>hey, there's no reason to have found this, no reason
>to have brought it to our attention, this is "creepy"
>(which implies, wheoever found/posted/finds interest
>in it is "creepy" as well), had not this pervasive
>paranoia (me, i've been watching to Nightline or
>whatever entrapment specials) about Kids Online and
>The Dirty Old Men (or whomever) Who Stalk Them reared
>(or pretnded to, at any rate) its ugly head here,
>well, at least I wouldn't have been set off, so ...

Dave, JD puts my point a hell of a lot better than I did the first time 
around (thank you), and I should have (and would have) been a lot less 
opaque about the whole thing from the very, very start, had I not thought 
that the issue of my concern was so evident. This part is my fault entirely, 
and I've already apologised to anyone who thought I had made insinuations 
about the integrity of their character; however, I've made it fairly clear 
that it's territory of discussion itself that I was describing as 'creepy', 
not you, nor Judy, nor Otto, nor anyone else, and I think that can be 
demonstrated both by my earlier email, and by the fact that I used the 
plural, and not once mention anyone's name in conjunction (I responded to 
your email in reply originally because it was the most recent in the 
discussion). If Judy or anyone else believes that anyone's comments warrant 
an apology, then they should come forward and say so, but I'm so far 
unconvinced that I need to issue another.

I think what you said pretty much sums it up - there is no reason why any of 
us should've found that page. It is in bad taste. We do we want that kind of 
information? An answer might be curiousity, but then there are limits to our 
curiousity for good reason.

>had not this pervasive
>paranoia (me, i've been watching to Nightline or
>whatever entrapment specials) about Kids Online and
>The Dirty Old Men (or whomever) Who Stalk Them reared
>(or pretnded to, at any rate) its ugly head here,
>well, at least I wouldn't have been set off, so ...

I've already explained that I don't believe anyone to be in any danger here. 
I'm sorry that this set you off to write that email. Because that truly is 
needlessly bothering someone, since there is no issue of anyone's personal 
safety at risk; and yet the issue of personal-safety only exists because of 
the original discussion, if you see what I mean - it can simply be avoided 
by keeping a good distance away from these people's lives; which should be 
done anyways. As JD said,

"The fact remains that there isn't anything to gain in regards to Pynchon's 
writings from anything his son might do, has done, will do, whatever.  I 
think it might be best if we simply do not involve ourselves in anything 
relating to his family...  I mean, Pynchon paying $50 to start a pie fight, 
or the fact that he carried a pig around, OK, maybe a bit of insight as to 
what kind of author he is.
The fact that his kid plays keyboard, means nothing to us in relation to any 
of the writing, and by looking into it in any degree whacks a little too 
close to the papprazzi following Brittany Speares around trying to get 
photos of her kid.  Do you get what I'm saying?  It would be kind of like if 
someone I never met and who lived in another state dropped me an email 
saying that they saw my girlfriend the other day...  even if he meant it 
respectfully and with good intention it's still like... wtf... why are you 
looking at my girlfriend, how do you know me or her... etc."

A man who claims that 'every weirdo in the world is on my wavelength' states 
his case, I think, pretty firmly. Again, it's about respecting the man's 
privacy.