what's in a word?

Mark Kohut mark.kohut at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 12:26:59 CST 2015 

I have half-held (sometimes) additional meanings (TRP's way, we know)
to this scene.
Perhaps not politically-correct ones...(as well as perhaps critically
wrong).....

But not going there now.....Laura was right on without possible stupid
additions.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:00 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Also, in V., though the word terrorist isn't used, the mad Brazilian zionist
> salad-maker Da Conho, who wanted to go to Israel to fight Arabs.
>
> "… Da Conho would assemble his machine gun, camouflage it with iceberg
> lettuce, watercress and Belgian endive, and mock-strafe the guests assembled
> in the dining room. 'Yibble, yibble, yibble,' he would go., squinting
> malevolent along the sights, 'got you dead center, Abdul Sayid. Yibble,
> yibble, Muslim pig.' Da Conho's machine gun was the only one in the world
> that went yibble, yibble."
>
> Aside from its portrayal of a zionist, rather than Muslim terrorist (ah, the
> good old days …), this passage also highlights a period when Americans
> considered terrorists marginal and comical. Remember the Libyan terrorists
> in Back To the Future (1985) - comical, jabbering caricatures who show up in
> Dipsville, USA. In fact, back then, "Libyan" was the American adjective most
> coupled with "terrorist", and probably remained so until 9/11.
>
> Laura
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Mark Kohut
>>Sent: Dec 8, 2015 10:46 AM
>>To: Danny Weltman
>>Cc: P-list List
>>Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>>
>>So work-specific is our writer. In ATD, in using the word, he aligns
>>it with the way America
>>coopted anarchy and anarchism as words to mean bomb-throwing murderers,
>> leaving
>>any peaceful self-organizing libertarian meanings in the dustbin of
>>history...Something America does
>>well, unfortunately and an almost perfect example of (mis) defining by
>>contextual use.....something
>>America can do and well.
>>
>>Conceptually, I think the Frank paragraph in ATD says scads about
>>'terrorism'. As I think the whole arc of
>>the Traverse family does.
>>
>>Very interesting uses in BLEEDING EDGE. Here Pynchon seems to be
>>showing how ubiquitous the
>>word has become. As we have been showing. With 9/11 in the book and
>>that death inside The Deep Web,
>>Pynchon may in his rich ambiguity be finding another objective correlative.
>>
>>in V., the 'old-fashioned' meaning of the word: terrorists as
>>murderers, in a gang. Being innovative in their
>>murdering.
>>
>>Lot 49.....Dr. Hilarious, that comic figure, so full of paranoia that,
>>of course, he thinks his aggression is self-defense.
>>This image generalizes, yes?
>>
>>And in GR, a terrorist is contrasted to the State, I think in those
>>string of images, we might say both sides of the
>>linkage have meaning because of the other word in the linkage...no
>>fisherman unless there are fish...no explorer without
>>an edge of the world to explore, etc.....
>>
>>On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Danny Weltman wrote:
>>> In Against the Day, "terrorist" shows up three times. The first time is
>>> in
>>> the context of "Anarchist terrorists," the second is describing the
>>> mysterious Gentleman Bomber, and the third in the context of
>>> "Antiterrorist"
>>> security at the World's Fair, which is again aimed at the anarchists.
>>> "Terrorism" shows up in the context of "the infant science of
>>> counter-terrorism" which is again mostly anti-anarchist.
>>>
>>> In Bleeding Edge, it shows up a few too many times for me to bother
>>> counting, mostly describing Islamic terrorism, once describing
>>> "neo-liberal
>>> terrorists," and once describing Soviet nuclear terror, although the word
>>> there is "terror," and some people have been plumping for definitions
>>> according to which this kind of terror isn't terrorism, so I'll refrain
>>> from
>>> making any judgments there.
>>>
>>> It's nowhere in Inherent Vice - the word "terror" is only in there once,
>>> in
>>> fact.
>>>
>>> Near the end of V., "I Banditti" is described as "a gang of terrorists or
>>> professional assassins" who "vie with one another in finding new and
>>> ingenious ways to murder."
>>>
>>> Terrorism shows up 3 times in Vineland, once when someone describes
>>> having
>>> mistaken Zoyd as "a real terrorist workin' for the State," once in
>>> reference
>>> to Japan's anti-terrorist subministry, and once describing how Brock
>>> "acted
>>> like a terrorist holding the place hostage" when he got mad.
>>>
>>> The only mention in Crying of Lot 49 is Dr. Hilarius, who, when holed up
>>> in
>>> his office with a rifle shooting at anyone who comes near, says that
>>> three
>>> terrorists with submachine guns are after him.
>>>
>>> "Terrorist" is the only form that appears in Gravity's Rainbow, and it
>>> appears once. I'll quote a big chunk:
>>>
>>> "He's a soldier," Luba simply meaning Tchitcherine, "and far away from
>>> home." Posted out to the wild East, and carrying on quiet,
>>> expressionless,
>>> and clearly under some official curse. The rumors are as extravagant as
>>> this
>>> country is listless. In the dayroom the corporals talk about a woman: an
>>> amazing Soviet courtesan who wore camisoles of white kid and shaved her
>>> perfect legs every morning all the way to the groin. Horse-fucking
>>> Catherine, ermined and brilliant, brought up to date. Her lovers ran from
>>> ministers down to the likes of Captain Tchitcherine, naturally her
>>> truest.
>>> While neo-Potemkins ranged the deep Arctic for her, skilled and
>>> technocratic
>>> wolves erecting settlements out of tundra, entire urban abstractions out
>>> of
>>> the ice and snow, bold Tchitcherine was back at the capital, snuggled
>>> away
>>> in her dacha, where they played at fisherman and fish, terrorist and
>>> State,
>>> explorer and edge of the wavegreen world. When official attention was
>>> finally directed their way, it did not mean death for Tchitcherine, not
>>> even
>>> exile—but a thinning out of career possibilities: that happened to be how
>>> the vectors ran, in those days.
>>>
>>> I don't have a digital copy of Mason & Dixon to mine - I doubt it has
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> The end.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>>>
>>>> GREAT question and I don't know. Maybe some plister with electronic
>>>> versions and a Find function??.....
>>>> But I think the concept is dealt with clearly and ( maybe) cleanly in
>>>> Against the Day.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> > On Dec 6, 2015, at 5:10 PM, "kelber at mindspring.com"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Question: Does the word appear in BE or any of Pynchon's other works?
>>>> >
>>>> > LK
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Mark Kohut wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I see. But it is why I think WE should try to find misuse vs, " real"
>>>> > uses. By " real" I mean substantive with meaning. And, of course,
>>>> > words like
>>>> > this have multiple meanings, subtleties, nuances, historical changes.
>>>> > But the meanings are not infinite. so, some uses are wrong.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent from my iPad
>>>> >
>>>> > > On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:45 PM,
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I'm not saying that it's desirable for the word to be defined by
>>>> > > context. But it's the reality.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > LK
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > >> From: Mark Kohut
>>>> > >> Sent: Dec 6, 2015 2:37 PM
>>>> > >> To: kelber
>>>> > >> Cc: David Morris , Joseph Tracy
>>>> > >>
> , P-list List
>>>> > >> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I would grant the truth of defined by context---as long as that
>>>> > >> does
>>>> > >> not mean anyone's contextual use...
>>>> > >> Right is using it to mean almost anything they want it to
>>>> > >> mean.....and
>>>> > >> some of the left want it to apply to
>>>> > >> just about every aggressive retort.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM, wrote:
>>>> > >>> David, you seem to be taking a very rigid view of language, as if
>>>> > >>> there's some universal, unchanging definition of the word
>>>> > >>> "terrorism" that,
>>>> > >>> if used, would guide foreign and domestic policy. Not every word,
>>>> > >>> but most
>>>> > >>> certainly this word, is entirely defined by context.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Laura
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> > >>>> From: Mark Kohut
>>>> > >>>> Sent: Dec 6, 2015 9:02 AM
>>>> > >>>> To: David Morris
>>>> > >>>> Cc: Joseph Tracy
> , P-list List
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> I ask related questions here on the plist so we might come
>>>> > >>>> together
>>>> > >>>> on
>>>> > >>>> a "valid use of certain words"....there are uses that
>>>> > >>>> are valid, albeit sometimes real tricky and nuanced to explicate,
>>>> > >>>> right?
>>>> > >>>> And I see part of our conversation as pointing out when such as
>>>> > >>>> mainstream media is using....with extended i.e. metaphoric
>>>> > >>>> meanings
>>>> > >>>> at
>>>> > >>>> the moment.....even as the meanings are and do change. Right?
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:49 AM, David Morris
>>>> > >>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>> The valid use of a word would normally be one in harmony with
>>>> > >>>>> its
>>>> > >>>>> definition, unless one was being purposely perverse.
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Joseph Tracy
>
>>>> > >>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> I’m just wondering if you could answer the question as to what
>>>> > >>>>>> is
>>>> > >>>>>> the
>>>> > >>>>>> valid use of the term ’terrorism’.
>>>> > >>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 8:36 PM, David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> English is not Chineese. Context doesn't overrule everything,
>>>> > >>>>>>> unless we
>>>> > >>>>>>> let it.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Joseph Tracy
>
>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>> so what then is the valid use of the term? I would like to
>>>> > >>>>>>> hear
>>>> > >>>>>>> a bit
>>>> > >>>>>>> more.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> Consider a reasonably parallel word: plagiarism. It is derived
>>>> > >>>>>>> from the
>>>> > >>>>>>> verb plagiarize as terrorism is derived from terrorize. Anyone
>>>> > >>>>>>> can
>>>> > >>>>>>> plagiarize. You just rip off another writer’s words and claim
>>>> > >>>>>>> them as yours.
>>>> > >>>>>>> There is no gender restriction, no age limits, no ethnic
>>>> > >>>>>>> consideration. I
>>>> > >>>>>>> would say terrorizing is quite similar, there is no inherent
>>>> > >>>>>>> limit implied
>>>> > >>>>>>> in the word on who can terrorize. Groups can do it,
>>>> > >>>>>>> individuals
>>>> > >>>>>>> can do it,
>>>> > >>>>>>> even animals can do it to other animals. Terrorism is just the
>>>> > >>>>>>> noun form.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> To my mind if a writer wants to further target or narrow the
>>>> > >>>>>>> meaning of
>>>> > >>>>>>> the term, then an adjective should be added like political
>>>> > >>>>>>> terrorism, racial
>>>> > >>>>>>> terrorism, intellectual terrorism.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> One has to be a little careful when it comes to the ism ending
>>>> > >>>>>>> but this
>>>> > >>>>>>> is clearly not a belief like communism or pacifism.
>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 10:38 PM, David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think a clear understanding of the valid use of the term is
>>>> > >>>>>>>> the best
>>>> > >>>>>>>> first defense against its misuse.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 4, 2015, Joseph Tracy
>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think Laura is onto the key factor in what is going on now
>>>> > >>>>>>>> with the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> use of this word ’Terrorism’. It is needed, wanted, and used
>>>> > >>>>>>>> not as a word
>>>> > >>>>>>>> which might apply to a range of circumstances, and be used
>>>> > >>>>>>>> variously with
>>>> > >>>>>>>> seriousness, with political precision, in apolitical context,
>>>> > >>>>>>>> even with
>>>> > >>>>>>>> humor etc., though all of those uses will appear in
>>>> > >>>>>>>> literature.
>>>> > >>>>>>>> It now fills
>>>> > >>>>>>>> a role as a political term which is directed almost
>>>> > >>>>>>>> exclusively
>>>> > >>>>>>>> at acts of
>>>> > >>>>>>>> violence by Muslims not aligned with theUS and to the extent
>>>> > >>>>>>>> it
>>>> > >>>>>>>> applies to
>>>> > >>>>>>>> anyone else it will be non-state groups or individuals with
>>>> > >>>>>>>> political
>>>> > >>>>>>>> messages or goals clearly at odds with Western media and
>>>> > >>>>>>>> cultural values.
>>>> > >>>>>>>> It is purposely undefined as a legal term, because then it
>>>> > >>>>>>>> could be
>>>> > >>>>>>>> logically applied to state as well as non-state instances of
>>>> > >>>>>>>> immoral
>>>> > >>>>>>>> violence against non-combatants.
>>>> > >>>>>>>> This current use comfortably allows and legitimizes state
>>>> > >>>>>>>> violence,
>>>> > >>>>>>>> targeted abuse, and the suspension of laws and imposition of
>>>> > >>>>>>>> intrusive
>>>> > >>>>>>>> surveillance, while expressing abhorrence for certain
>>>> > >>>>>>>> non-state
>>>> > >>>>>>>> uses against
>>>> > >>>>>>>> those we care about. That should make us wary of its use and
>>>> > >>>>>>>> wary of trying
>>>> > >>>>>>>> to agree with the media appropriation as a narrow and purely
>>>> > >>>>>>>> pejorative
>>>> > >>>>>>>> term that can only apply on their unstated but implied terms.
>>>> > >>>>>>>> NON-STATE HYPOCRISY
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Most mass shootings by individuals have been by white men but
>>>> > >>>>>>>> there
>>>> > >>>>>>>> is no widespread fear or investigation of white men. Many
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cops
>>>> > >>>>>>>> operate in
>>>> > >>>>>>>> dangerous and lawless affinity groups and have chalked up a
>>>> > >>>>>>>> lot
>>>> > >>>>>>>> of dead
>>>> > >>>>>>>> bodies that look like unjustified racist violence. Where is
>>>> > >>>>>>>> the
>>>> > >>>>>>>> media call
>>>> > >>>>>>>> for accountability and investigation there? Terrorism? The
>>>> > >>>>>>>> term
>>>> > >>>>>>>> certainly
>>>> > >>>>>>>> applied to the Ku Klux Klan, or the Brownshirts. Why not in
>>>> > >>>>>>>> this case?
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> I remember the global appearance of the word in its current
>>>> > >>>>>>>> application to be under Ronald Reagan with the fall of Soviet
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Communism and
>>>> > >>>>>>>> the need for new enemies. It was applied to THE Nicaraguan
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Government but
>>>> > >>>>>>>> not the contras and to Salvadoran rebels but not to the right
>>>> > >>>>>>>> wing
>>>> > >>>>>>>> para-military groupsIN El Salvador or their CIA helpers.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:35 PM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And adding to the confusion are the gray areas, such as the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Colorado
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Springs shooting, where mental illness and ideology overlap,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> or, as the San
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bernardino shooting seems to be developing into, a mixture
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> of
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ideological
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> inspiration and going postal. If there's some ideology in
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> mix (how about
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> hatred of women, as in that Montreal shooting?), how much is
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> needed before
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> it becomes terrorism? What's the difference between
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> inspiration (from ISIS,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> from Trump)and a direct order? In the present climate the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> answer seems to
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> be: the Muslim factor. Muslim shooters are most, or even
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> always likely to be
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> labelled terrorists, while the rest get shunted into the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> mentally ill
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> category. To the dead and wounded, it's a pretty arcane
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Laura
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> From: Mark Kohut
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Dec 4, 2015 2:26 PM
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> To: Danny Weltman
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: pynchon -l
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> yes, I fell back on my first 'studies'....Nechaev....and
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Laquer's
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> definition a bit later.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You are right, and I remember reading it in what you sent,
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> about
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> REIGN
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> OF TERROR.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Danny Weltman
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If "traditional" actually means "original," the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "traditional"
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> term is the intimidation undertaken by the government
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Reign of
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Terror in the French Revolution. If by "traditional" we
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "what it
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> has meant up until recently," then the "traditional"
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> over time, as is the case with most politically charged
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> words (and
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> good chunk of less politically charged words, too). A good
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> summary
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> found in section 1 of this article:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Mark Kohut
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I always thought the core 'traditional' meaning of the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> word
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> kill/attack citizens when not at war.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Paul Mackin
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the traditional meaning of the word, I always
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thought.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-terrorist gun killing may be the greater threat in
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, but a
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser one in another. Fear can change people in bad
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ways, but
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ship
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> has sailed.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, by this logic, the motive of the killer determines
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> violence is an act of terrorism. Only if the intent is
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instill a
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of danger/terror in the surviving populace would the
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terroeism.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Morris
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Paul Mackin
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As one friend pointed out, Paris is not actually any
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before Nov. 13. What's changed, dramatically, is our
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception of
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imminent
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> danger. And that makes all the psychological
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference."
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what makes it TERRORISM.
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-mass-shootings-like-the-one-in-san-bernadino/even-in-paris-guns-look-like-a-greater-threat-than-terrorism
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -
>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>>> -
>>>> > >>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> -
>>>> > >>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> -
>>>> > >>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> > >>>> -
>>>> > >>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> > >> -
>>>> > >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> > >
>>>> > -
>>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> -
>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>
>>>
>>-
>>Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list