what's in a word?

Tue Dec 8 13:10:01 CST 2015

Terrorism is a war tactic, used for whatever and whomever. Anarchism is a
goal, not a tactic.

David Morris

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015, <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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/?listpynchon-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151208/50d17cd0/attachment.html>