Might this discussion be gay?

[Emma Wrigley]

I would plump for asexual if not unsexual, rather than a previously
mentioned antisexual. As for latent homosexuality, I don't see it, or
rather it doesn't register with me to any degree greater than in any
other human character in probably most literature I've read (yes, I'm
discounting robots, cyborgs etc.). 
Mmmmm, dunno, aren't we all latent homosexuals to some extent or
another, ergo a certain amount of latent homosexuality will creep up on
any 'unsuspecting' author. Or is he suspecting...
<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Joe Allonby [joeallonby at gmail.com]
>Sent: 17/6/2010 4:43:52 PM
>To: john.carvill at sap.com;john.carvill at sap.com
>Cc: keithsz at mac.com;pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Might this discussion be gay?
>
>Do I detect an agenda?
>
>
>On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Carvill, John wrote:
>>> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>>
>> Just go along, Joe. Go along...
>>
>>
>>
>.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20100617/4e2dbbd6/attachment.html>