Subject
Lolita and Pete Townshend
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Brown" <as-brown@comcast.net>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (130
lines) ------------------
> http://www.hecktow.com/pete.html
>
> I find I was mistaken. Townsend does mention the circumstance of a srudent
> studying Lolita.
>
> I've attached the link above so those interested can judge for themselves
> what emphasis Townsend is placing on the subject of scholarship in his
> article.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:37 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Lolita and Pete Townshend
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erin McLean" <erin@community.hipmama.com>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (77
> > lines) ------------------
> > > To clarify, Pete Townsend claimed in the article under discussion that
> > child porn is so ubiquitous on the internet that Nabokov scholars
couldn't
> > help running into it by accident in the course of their "Lolita"
research.
> > > EM
> > >
> > > --- "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >EDNOTE. I'm not sure what Erin McLean is distressed about. I barely
> know
> > who
> > > >Mr. Townshend is and have no interest in his sexual proclivities.
> Rather
> > I
> > > >was bemused about "the forces of evil" tapping in on Lolita web
> searches.
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Erin McLean" <erin@community.hipmama.com>
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not buying it. Pete's story changes as to why he went searching
> for
> > > >"boys" on the internet, and I'm sure we can all attest that, contrary
> to
> > his
> > > >claims, it is perfectly easy to research Nabokov without being
"forced"
> > to
> > > >pay for child porn "Lolita" sites. Give me a break.
> > > >> Erin McLean
> > > >>
> > > >> --- "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >> >EDNOTE. I'm sure the nascent Office of Homeland Security will find
> the
> > > >> >frequency of occurrence of "Lolita" in NABOKV-L exchanges to be
> > > >suspicious.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >From: "David Morris" <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> > > >> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (25
> > > >> >lines) ------------------
> > > >> >> http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "[The above provides a link to] an article about kiddie porn
that
> > Pete
> > > >> >> Townshend posted to his website last August, then removed for
> legal
> > > >> >reasons; it
> > > >> >> is now being circulated via e-mail by the critic/reporter Dave
> > Marsh.
> > > >For
> > > >> >> whatever it's worth, the piece fits the musician's version of
> > events."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> An exerpt from the article:
> > > >> >> "I am also aware - as are most people today I think - of how
easy
> it
> > is
> > > >to
> > > >> >> trigger the attention of an internet service provider (ISP) when
> > > >certain
> > > >> >> 'buzz-words' are used in a search. These are, in effect, words -
> or
> > > >> >> combinations of words - that alert attention at the ISP. [...]
> > > >> >> The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com
listed
> > > >'lolita'
> > > >> >high
> > > >> >> on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often
> > No.1).
> > > >It
> > > >> >> seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on. Who were
all
> > these
> > > >> >people
> > > >> >> typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all
> > > >paedophiles.
> > > >> >They
> > > >> >> may have been vigilantes. I'm fairly certain that in most cases
> they
> > > >were
> > > >> >> simply curious of what they might find. The terrible part is
that
> > what
> > > >> >they
> > > >> >> found on the internet will almost have certainly found them by
> > return."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> __________________________________________________
> > > >> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >> >> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > > >> >> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> > > >>
> > > >> _____________________________________________________________
> > > >> hipMama.com = Raucous + Opinionated + Iconoclastic
> > > >>
> > > >> _____________________________________________________________
> > > >> Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get
you@yourchoice.com
> > w/No
> > > >Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > hipMama.com = Raucous + Opinionated + Iconoclastic
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com
> w/No
> > Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
> > >
>
From: "Andrew Brown" <as-brown@comcast.net>
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (130
lines) ------------------
> http://www.hecktow.com/pete.html
>
> I find I was mistaken. Townsend does mention the circumstance of a srudent
> studying Lolita.
>
> I've attached the link above so those interested can judge for themselves
> what emphasis Townsend is placing on the subject of scholarship in his
> article.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:37 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Fw: Lolita and Pete Townshend
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erin McLean" <erin@community.hipmama.com>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (77
> > lines) ------------------
> > > To clarify, Pete Townsend claimed in the article under discussion that
> > child porn is so ubiquitous on the internet that Nabokov scholars
couldn't
> > help running into it by accident in the course of their "Lolita"
research.
> > > EM
> > >
> > > --- "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >EDNOTE. I'm not sure what Erin McLean is distressed about. I barely
> know
> > who
> > > >Mr. Townshend is and have no interest in his sexual proclivities.
> Rather
> > I
> > > >was bemused about "the forces of evil" tapping in on Lolita web
> searches.
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Erin McLean" <erin@community.hipmama.com>
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not buying it. Pete's story changes as to why he went searching
> for
> > > >"boys" on the internet, and I'm sure we can all attest that, contrary
> to
> > his
> > > >claims, it is perfectly easy to research Nabokov without being
"forced"
> > to
> > > >pay for child porn "Lolita" sites. Give me a break.
> > > >> Erin McLean
> > > >>
> > > >> --- "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >> >EDNOTE. I'm sure the nascent Office of Homeland Security will find
> the
> > > >> >frequency of occurrence of "Lolita" in NABOKV-L exchanges to be
> > > >suspicious.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >From: "David Morris" <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> > > >> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (25
> > > >> >lines) ------------------
> > > >> >> http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> "[The above provides a link to] an article about kiddie porn
that
> > Pete
> > > >> >> Townshend posted to his website last August, then removed for
> legal
> > > >> >reasons; it
> > > >> >> is now being circulated via e-mail by the critic/reporter Dave
> > Marsh.
> > > >For
> > > >> >> whatever it's worth, the piece fits the musician's version of
> > events."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> An exerpt from the article:
> > > >> >> "I am also aware - as are most people today I think - of how
easy
> it
> > is
> > > >to
> > > >> >> trigger the attention of an internet service provider (ISP) when
> > > >certain
> > > >> >> 'buzz-words' are used in a search. These are, in effect, words -
> or
> > > >> >> combinations of words - that alert attention at the ISP. [...]
> > > >> >> The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com
listed
> > > >'lolita'
> > > >> >high
> > > >> >> on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often
> > No.1).
> > > >It
> > > >> >> seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on. Who were
all
> > these
> > > >> >people
> > > >> >> typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all
> > > >paedophiles.
> > > >> >They
> > > >> >> may have been vigilantes. I'm fairly certain that in most cases
> they
> > > >were
> > > >> >> simply curious of what they might find. The terrible part is
that
> > what
> > > >> >they
> > > >> >> found on the internet will almost have certainly found them by
> > return."
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> __________________________________________________
> > > >> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >> >> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > > >> >> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> > > >>
> > > >> _____________________________________________________________
> > > >> hipMama.com = Raucous + Opinionated + Iconoclastic
> > > >>
> > > >> _____________________________________________________________
> > > >> Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get
you@yourchoice.com
> > w/No
> > > >Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > hipMama.com = Raucous + Opinionated + Iconoclastic
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________________
> > > Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com
> w/No
> > Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
> > >
>