Oliver Stone

[Mervin Sockpuppet]

I thought Joe's in-depth analysis and speculation upon the possible
psyche of Harry

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Iris Sirius <irissiriustce at gmail.com> wrote:
> somebody might sayt. I will. Bled,s study of Sivas name will go down in
> Pynchonic history as one of the cleverest mails ever on the pynchon_l.
>
> On Jan 21, 2013 1:08 PM, "Bled Welder" <bledwelder at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm just having a laugh here.
>>
>> Prashant.  You're a tad older than moi, and you're smarter than me.
>>
>> I'm just curious.  Do you know your name is....prescient?  I think the
>> term, being, help me out here Kohutable, leave off the Twitting for five
>> seconds and what is, prescient?  I mean the word, I'm not asking you to be
>> prescient.  I'm not asking you to be Prashant, god forbid.  Is that some
>> sort of Hindi, thing?  Like, say, Yao, in China, Yahoo in america, what's a
>> popular name in North Korea, I worked with a dude for two years in LA,
>> construction management, the Californians floated a 5 billion dollar bill,
>> real like nerdy fellow, tall, almost as tall as pertaining to moi,
>> presciently, and he kept, well he was let go eventually, nothing to do wed
>> me, but he kept, cracking these unfunny jokes, but I mean he was funny, you
>> just had to be there, he was Korean, right, southerly obviously, it's not
>> like Kim Jung Il sent the troops over after the bill floated, after every
>> half-assed crack, this nerdy fellow finished his goof off with...."like from
>> China."
>>
>> Siva.  Now I will save now.  Your name is Siva Preshant?  That has to be
>> some type of Hindi pseudonym.  Who were/are your parents.  I want to know
>> this.  I'm morphing DeLillo here.  Pre--of the beginning of.  Scient--mind?
>> Science?  What is the word science being, becoming.  This I want to know.
>> So, Siva, you're a god of destruction, but which, help me out here
>> Kohutimababale, can be interpreted any, which, way.
>>
>> Anyway, just a thought, there seems to be some serious translation of The
>> Them, going on, round abouts this time.  You speak perfect English. Wait,
>> that is an absurd absumption, that English is your second language.  You
>> may, not, even, speak Hindi.  You may be pure blue blood, straight out of
>> the suburbialandifortification--ized, of Princeton.
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Prashant Kumar
>> <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just re your 2), the physicists at Los Alamos did calculations to
>>> determine whether an atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere (forget and am
>>> too lazy to find out when). So it's a safe bet that distinctions between
>>> atomic and regular bombs hadn't crystallised in the political psyche.
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 21, 2013, Joe Allonby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Truman was a politician, not a soldier. His understandable
>>>> deference to the generals at the time helped create the problem that
>>>> he had to deal with later in MacArthur. I'm looking around for
>>>> evidence that Truman said "Drop these here two big bombs on those
>>>> there cities."
>>>>
>>>> 2) Again, did anyone who was not a physicist or advanced chemist
>>>> understand what went down at Alamogordo? Or did they just think BIG
>>>> FUCKING BOMB?
>>>>
>>>> 3) I think we're in agreement here.
>>>>
>>>> I really don't know the answer to 1 & 2, but I'm going to spend some
>>>> time today between football coverage looking into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>>> > 1.  You think Truman gave A bombs to generals to use at their
>>>> > discretion
>>>> > and, if they felt like dropping one on a Japanese city, that was up to
>>>> > them?
>>>> >
>>>> > 2.  Destructive power?  The bomb was tested ...
>>>> >
>>>> > 3.  Can't say, but I strongly suspect the answer is no.
>>>> >
>>>> > Did Truman give specific orders for the use of A-bombs at Hiroshima
>>>> > and Nagasaki? Or did he simply give the weapons to generals who then
>>>> > did what generals do?
>>>> >
>>>> > Were any of the people making political decisions and calculations at
>>>> > the time aware of the destructive power and potential threat of these
>>>> > new weapons that had never been used before?
>>>> >
>>>> > Did people flying in propeller planes envision ICBMs tipped with
>>>> > fusion bombs and the threat of global thermonuclear war?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com>
>>>> > To: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
>>>> > Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> > Sent: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 10:45 am
>>>> > Subject: Re: Oliver Stone
>>>> >
>>>> > Did Truman give specific orders for the use of A-bombs at Hiroshima
>>>> > and Nagasaki? Or did he simply give the weapons to generals who then
>>>> > did what generals do?
>>>> >
>>>> > Were any of the people making political decisions and calculations at
>>>> > the time aware of the destructive power and potential threat of these
>>>> > new weapons that had never been used before?
>>>> >
>>>> > Did people flying in propeller planes envision ICBMs tipped with
>>>> > fusion bombs and the threat of global thermonuclear war?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> My memory of the facts as presented in that book were that the
>>>> >> Japanese
>>>> >> were
>>>> >> looking to negotiate a peace and that this was communicated through
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> Russians, who had still not declared war on Japan, but were going to.
>>>> >> The
>>>> >> US knew of this (as I recall) both through diplomatic traffic from
>>>> >> Russia
>>>> >> and from our own intelligence.  The timing of the bombing then (given
>>>> >> that
>>>> >> Russia was about to become a declared adversary) was to keep Russia
>>>> >> away
>>>> >> from the negotiating table once surrender was taken.  I'm
>>>> >> simplifying, but
>>>> >> the book is rich in this sort of thing and well documented.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
>>>> >> To: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
>>>> >> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> >> Sent: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 9:27 am
>>>> >> Subject: Re: Oliver Stone
>>>> >>
>>>> >> interesting. i'll have to read that one.  I'm curious though whether
>>>> >> Truman and Co. had irrefutable proof of a impending Japanese
>>>> >> surrender. If memory serves there was still no inkling of such after
>>>> >> Hiroshima. Maybe some of the scientists who worked on the bomb had
>>>> >> reservations but from all I've read about the event there was still
>>>> >> many die hards in Japan who wanted to fight to the end.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> Suggested reading is Martin Sherwin's excellent book on the bombing
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> Japan, A World Destroyed.  Very strong argument that there was
>>>> >>> little
>>>> >>> moral
>>>> >>> hand-wringing.  from the get-go, the idea was to drop a bomb for
>>>> >>> geopolitical reasons:  to bring the USSR to bay in the post-war era,
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> which purpose it failed.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Original research at the time the book was written, benefiting from
>>>> >>> Carter's
>>>> >>> Freedom  of Information act.
>>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >>> From: Paul Mackin <
>>
>>
>