Trolling (was Re: ATD: cover seal)

[Paul Mackin]

On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:45 PM, pynchonoid wrote:

>
> Coming from a champion flame-fanner and -thrower
> yourself, you surprise me, Keef.
>
> I'm not ashamed of answering and teasing a bit with
> Malign/Morris/Mackin, not at all -

this isn't really what people are complaining about, Doug.

> I always give them
> a shot at entering the Pynchon discussion as human
> beings, trying to keep things light and have fun and,
> in recent weeks though you don't seem to have noticed,
> trying to get the focus out of the flaming and into
> ATD. Often enough, I manage to make some of my posts
> entertaining to read at the same time - you should
> read my fan mail. So the sockpuppets kept at it again
> this time, and I got into it a bit with them, SO
> FUCKING WHAT.  As many here have said many times in
> the past, it's only voices on the Internet, if you
> don't want to listen you don't have to, change the
> channel, take the discussion in a different direction
> - you had a shot with this post, Keef, but you choose
> differently, so be it, you like the meta-p as much as
> anybody and you know it.
>
> I'm comfortable with the work I've done to help make
> the p-list archives a useful resource, not to mention
> other Web-based resources for Pynchon readers; I've
> worked as hard as most, more than many, less than
> others. I've done my share in the group readings and
> annotation, and will continue to do so.
>
> I'm also glad that I persisted in answering - for 5
> years -  the false allegations and insinuations that
> I, and Pynchon Notes, and God knows who else were
> involved in a conspiracy or hoax re the Playboy Japan
> interview, glad I persisted long enough to see the
> chief accuser exposed as a lying fraud himself.
> Without speaking up and entering the fray from time to
> time, that fraudster might have managed to insiniate
> his own hoax into the public record re Pynchon, so I'm
> glad, on balance, I stuck with that argument as long
> as I did, even though I know it irritated a few people
> who seemed to enjoy the other side's approach more
> than they like the truth. And, I expect it wouldn't
> take long to find a post or two or more in which you,
> Keef, joined in that slandering chorus, or egged them
> on from the sidelines, I doubt your shorts will pass
> the sniff test on this one, which makes your current
> self-righteous posture a tad suspect. We've both had
> toddlers, and you know you don't even have to get
> close enough to sniff when they hold themselves with
> just that certain tension, expecting to get busted,
> looking forward to it, really, happen to create a
> stink just for the stink's sake.  Would have been OK
> for you to speak up to defend Pynchon Notes, at least,
> or are you another one who likes to drop names
> associated with that pub just to make your cheap
> points here?
>
>> We are
>> on the verge of a
>> massive discussion of a new Pynchon novel.
>
> Haven't you noticed, some of us have already begun
> this discussion here, and some are building an
> incredible resource to aid in the study of the new
> book, too, and all are welcome to join, at
> http://pynchonwiki.com - I'm sure we'll see you dive
> in and help, Keef?  Some of us are already discussing
> and you're welcome to join in this discussion  here in
> Pynchon-l the parts of ATD  - few, admittedly - that
> have become public knowledge, too, no need to hold
> back and kibbitz, dive on in, don't hold back, show at
> least as much passion for that discussion as you do in
> taking the cheap shots that have been your chief
> contribution here for quite a few years now.  Take us
> back to the glory days of the Wise & Instructive Keef,
> who guided us so well through those mystifying
> passages in Mason & Dixon - I know you can do it,
> Keef, and hope you can manage to gift us in that way
> this time.
>
>
>> It has
>> the potential of
>> being a very entertaining and enlightening
>> interchange.
>
> Already has become one, why not join in?
>
>> The
>> babysquabbling has the potential to destroy the
>> whole damned
>> discussion. All it would take would be for one side
>> or the other of
>> this nonsense to stop participating, and it would
>> stop.
>
> Haven't you noticed, the other side keeps it up
> whether I participate or not.  Eventually I decide to
> answer back.  So have you in similar situations.
> Watch - they'll keep it up, Macking is still talking
> trash, I'll let it slide for awhile, then do whatever
> I choose to do, no problemo. I'll do a bunch of useful
> stuff for my fellow p-listers, nobody will notice,
> then when I call an asshole an asshole again, that
> will be the topic of discussion for a day or two,
> regular as clockwork.  You could look it up.
>
>> It amazes me
>> that none of the participants are embarrassed by
>> their participation.
>> But, so long as they get some payoff for continuing
>> it, it will
>> continue, and evidently some of those on the
>> sidelines find it
>> entertaining as well.
>
> Not to mention, helping to fan the flames, start new
> arguments - you've been there with the best of them,
> Keef, and here you are indulging in it again, the
> disconnect between your scolding advice and your
> behavior nearly complete.  It's apparently OK for you
> to use the platform to criticize others, but  you
> don't want others to do what you're doing.
>
>
>> Thus, this bizarre world of
>> email discussion
>> will obviously do what it will do. And I'm babbling
>> on here for no
>> good reason and will now stop and take my own advice
>> from this point
>> forward until I relapse and start bitching about it
>> again.
>>
>
> I won't say you're out of line to speak this way, it's
> a free discussion, but I think you're wrong and
> hypocritical to argue as you do. Practice what you
> preach for awhile, address the folks who trash the
> discussion without adding anything to it instead of
> just jumping on the bash-Doug bandwagon with the rest
> of the more vocal hypocrites in this groupuscule  and
> maybe I'll have more respect for your unsolicited
> advice.
>
> And, yes, by all means, let's continue the fun
> discussion of ATD that's begun.  If you need to
> continue in nanny mode, feel free to target the
> Mackin/Morris/Malign troika at any time, since they so
> consistently introduce the shitty stuff you have
> enjoyed so well in the discussion until, apparently,
> today.
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to  
> Yahoo! Groups
> (http://groups.yahoo.com)
>