TRTR(1) Eye Goddesses Wearing Dipthongs

[Paul Mackin]

On 4/11/2011 5:56 PM, Erik T. Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> >But the fact that fewer people talk that way now certainly doesn't 
> mean that there are any fewer insincere people or errors in logic 
> around than >formerly.  It's just no longer in style to dwell on such 
> things so much.
>
> as the kids say these days, O RLY?
>
> it seems to me that so often the Internet is just one big snarking 
> "dwell on the insincerity and illogic of my fellow man" machine.
>
> Exhibit A: the Pynchon-l on pretty much any given day of the past decade.
>
> it's fun if you can stand it.

Yeah, I probably misspoke a little.  Perhaps I should have said I don't 
notice or am not affected by certain things now as much as in the past.  
I do scan the letters to the editor in the Washington Post.  People find 
it necessary to point out spelling and grammatical errors as if our 
lives depended on it.  And "why do you waste space on THAT story while 
another more important story is ignored."  I figure the letters section 
is printed mostly for laughs.  Anyway things seem a lot different from 
50 or 60 years ago. It's me of course,  I'm very ancient.

But your attitude is good. Have fun if you can stand it.

And pay attention to the kids. rily


P
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net 
> <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/11/2011 5:08 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>         It was your describing it as necesary that seemed a
>         post-rationalization.
>
>
>     Oh, OK, if that's a problem I modify my sentence to it was THOUGHT
>     necessary.
>
>     Just as it was thought necessary to send a bunch of new folks to
>     Congress to straighten things out.
>
>     Just as it will be thought necessary in a few years to send them
>     all back home again.
>
>     Doubt either event is necessary in an ontological sense.
>
>     P
>
>
>
>          It wasn't by any means necesary.  It was the
>         victor in a power play.  The other contendors have mostly
>         erased from
>         history.
>
>         On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Paul
>         Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net
>         <mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net>>  wrote:
>
>             On 4/11/2011 3:46 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>                 I think your presentation here is a prime example of
>                 post-rationalization.
>
>             Explaining why something occurred (or trying to explain
>             it)  isn't the same as rationalization.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20110411/878add9b/attachment.html>