pynchon-l-digest V2 #6726

[Paul Mackin]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carvill John" <johncarvill at hotmail.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: pynchon-l-digest V2 #6726


>
> NOt to harp on about all this, but having had Pauls Mackin's post swirling 
> around my head all morning (among a great number of other swirlings of 
> course), it occurs to me that there's a central irony here which I didn't 
> really address yet.
>
> Paul said:
>
> <>
>
> Now leaving aside the cheap rhetorical trick of Paul telling me what my 
> case rests on, and then setting fire to that convenient straw man, what's 
> really rich is that he seems to be saying that I expect people to buy my 
> view of teh matter because i have this gospel truth to back me up. Well, 
> I'm *not* saying that, but what if I was?
>
> How would even that stack up against Paul Mackin's case, which (if I may 
> take teh liberty of setting it out for him) seems to be:
>
> 1. John Carvill is not God, therefore any 'knowledge' or 'facts' he may 
> have do not make for a cast-iron case; and
>
> 2. My approach, which is based on an absolute absence of knowledge of teh 
> matter, but relies instead on my blind faith in Chomsky, is the more 
> credible one.
>
>
> What anyone who wants to make an unbiased assessment must consider, is 
> that all the people who argue agsinst me on this one seem to be basing 
> their argument on their support for someone - Chomsky - whose opinions on 
> other matters they trust and respect. They like the cut of old Chomsky's 
> jib, as it were, so calling him out on his denials and water muddyings 
> over genocide just can't be cricket, can it? I think what you need to do 
> is to accept the fact that Chomsky may have got this particular issue 
> wrong, and keep in mind that if he has, then that doesn't mean he has 
> always been wrong about everything else.
>
> Me, I could never rely on anything such a person said, ever again, because 
> if they can make such an arse of themselves over this issue, if they base 
> their argument on knee-jerk, one-dimensional, chronically un-nuanced 
> prejudices, then who's to say they won't do that again?
>
> It makes me really really angry to hear people like Paul Mackin choosing 
> sides with Chomsky on this issue, purely because of their blind faith in 
> him, without ever stopping to think about the issues themselves. It's 
> frightening really.


John--you got me mixed up with someone else.

I hardly ever find myself agreeing with Chomsky.

Except on the grammar stuff.

P.

>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
> http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009