Re: A Very (sur) Real Monica
<[email protected]> Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:20:14 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.literature.thomas-pynchon |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <001d01c21ee9$98e5b780$861677d8@533> |
But the only one I'd ever arrange a meeting with is Doug, so what good would that do? No, I take it back. I'd do Richard Fiero too. But he's probably long gone by now.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Weaver" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: Re: A Very (sur) Real Monica > > >>Monica is likely to be Terance > > > >In this I know you are wrong. All you have to do is search her name on > >the web and you'll see she's been a participant on other reading lists > >long before she showed up here > > Well Dave, unless someone meets them in person we can't know for sure. I'm > pretty certain M is T - not 100% - whoever, 's'he ain't a 19/20 yr old girl > from Peru. You watch - the mask is slipping. TF is such a religious nut he > can't help, as he just has, in returning to that focus. "Used to work in > film..." did she? Busy life so far! > I did look at a couple of the sites you listed - they confirmed my > suspicions. The older sites I never saw, they further convince me. > In 1998 Monica would have been 15/16 depending on which age you believe on > the ICQ site. You telling me that Joycean wordstream is a work > of precocity - a-and what modern 15 yr old refers to'fellow-men'? > > As for Doug/Barbara - you hate the guy so much you are blind to his > psychology. He has just isn't a pseudonym sort of guy, except as an obvious > referential pun. Again, unless 'Barbara' does arrange and attend a meeting > with one of us who is positively identifiable then it's all just guess work > > >. The only split-personality I see in his posts is between the clear and > >the unintelligible. > > That's coz yr not hip to political positioning. The guy is all over the road. > > My intended point stands: the use of female pseudonyms by men on the list > is deeply reactionary as it invites suspicion to be visited on the > contributions of any women attempting to join the discussions. > > I might be a crap literary detective but I recognise a boys' club when I > see one > > Ciaofernow > The onehanded Weave >