OK, I'll bite

[Paul Nightingale]

http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0903&msg=133663&sort=date
http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0903&msg=133736&sort=date

My two posts on the subject; and you'll notice that nowhere do I align
myself with the Chomsky camp.

A modest contribution simply because--a good policy, I've always found--I
had nothing else to say. Until John Carvill, having tired of abusing others,
decided to wind me up. Well OK, and it's all Lawrence's fault for mentioning
Chomsky in the first place. Hope you're thoroughly ashamed, or maybe rocking
with laughter.

John's first mild-mannered post depended rather heavily on the Guardian
interview, the sole reason I sent the first post above. John decided against
telling me to fuck off, and opted for trying to patronise me instead:
"Please be aware that medialens ..." etc. Well yes, how could I have been so
foolish as to overlook the obvious?

Then the second post, to which John responded:

<<Yu can argue about the content and tone of teh Guardian article forever. I
see it as amild piss-take aboyt Chomsky's support for a bunch of loopy
genocide deniers. Whatever the facts of teh technicality that got the
article withdrawn, the main point remains, and is undenied by CHomsky
himself: he denies Genocide.>>

Well, you did depend rather a lot on the "mild piss-take" first time out.
The quotation above is dismissive of a source you had earlier offered as
damning evidence for the prosecution. I'll decline the offer to comment on
your reading of Chomsky.

And now, the wind-up posts today. Firstly, what purports to be an allusion
to my second post:

<<I certainly was the recipient of a personal attck, form Paul NIghtingale,
way back when I first dared question Saint Chomsky's wisdom, but I think I
answered his points fairly satisfactorily; certainly I never heard any more
from him on the matter.>>

To be honest, you didn't, and haven't anywhere else, "answered ... fairly
satisfactorily"; but we'll let that pass. And I didn't dream you expected me
to go on wasting my time, given your inability to practise logic.

And then:

<<Sure, I get upset about this topic, that's right, I do. Should I keep that
to myself? Yeah, probably. BUt I caught a reference to Chomsky going by, and
couldn't resist putting a little hook into it, calling him on what history
will judge to be his folly over Bosnia. For doing so, I got attacked, called
a typical Guardian reader (been called worse, but still) who reads the
Guardian (for shame!) so he can go to nice middle-class dinner parties
(nobody told Paul N that 'dinner parties' went out around 1989) and denounce
Chomsky, and who, for teh same reasons of limited intellect, can't be
bothered to read Pynchon, which begs the question, well, how did I get
here?>>

Speaking as a fellow Guardian reader--and Americans might not realise what
tortured souls we are--I can only say the quality of your reading here does
leave something to be desired. Self-pitying or what?

But since you're into begging questions, as opposed to simply begging
attention, why not comment on Pynchon? Why not contribute to the current
excellent (thanks to one and all; like Otto, I recall the vitriol-filled
days of yore) group-read of VL? Why not say something about AtD: have you
read it yet?

Me, I'm back to AtD, so feel free to have the last word.