list of agnostics

[Madeleine Maudlin]

After yourself, I seem to be the most recent parcipitant (that's not a
word? I'm being redlined (and again!)) on this heavenly society, and I date
back something like four months.

What I have gathered is that the people who precipitate here have been
around, precipitating, for a long time. Long time.  Like what in
archaeology might be called "olden times", or "deep antiquity", even
"prehistory".  For example, I'm not clear on this, I could be wrong, but
one day I caught a glimpse of evidence that, you know the fellow on here
who communicates by linking?  You can tune into his mind and he'll start
linking things you're thinking about.  Anyway back in the olden times he
actually typed out words....

So, imagine how many times, or for how long, they've discussed Mason and
Dixon....

One fascinating thing I find is that often threads of a conversation must
have surely been discussed eight thousand times before, but it's discussed
as though it's the first time anybody has brought it up.  Like agnosticism,
in the list and in Pynchon.  And then somebody complaining about it not
being the right proper thing to be discussing.  *Surely* this has all been
done before.  Even a maudlin recounting of the whole episode....


On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Lemuel Underwing <luunderwing at gmail.com>wrote:

> Who gives a shit? My patience is wearing thin with this list and I was
> warned by a reliable source that this was the case.... where is Pynchon?
> Far, far away from this place.
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>wrote:
>
>>  On 6/28/2012 6:04 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>
>>  Would you call yourself an agnostic?
>>
>> Clement Atlee: I don't know.
>>
>>
>> that's the way I feel about it.  I'm gonna become an agnostic. They're
>> nice people. Not defensive.
>>
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120629/72f42929/attachment.html>