Trolling (was Re: ATD: cover seal)

[Paul Mackin]

On Nov 2, 2006, at 10:04 AM, David Morris wrote:

> 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

this sounds like you are advocating a policy of cut and run.

not sure we should give on the guy

stay the course . . .





>
> 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)
>> >
>>
>>