Trolling (was Re: ATD: cover seal)

[David Morris]

OK.  I'll resolve to follow what I resolved to do years ago (before
Doug took his leave of absence from here) to completely ignore all of
Doug's posts and not respond to any of them, no matter how
aggravating.

David Morris

On 11/2/06, Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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)
> >
>
>