Candice:
Sorry for not replying sooner.
Candice Ward wrote:
>> I'm also baffled by your subsequent jellyfish post. What's your point? I
found its subject line disturbing (in this context) and hope it wasn't meant
maliciously, i.e., to make the list feel threatened.
Poets are supposed to have "a point"?
But your hope has come true! It wasn't meant maliciously; I don't have a malicious
bone in my body.
That morning, I was e-mailing a friend abt. the recent performance of Ovid's
~Metamorphoses~ that he saw at the Secondary Stage Theater (verifiable via
http://www.nypress.com/14/43/news&columns/theater.cfm ). He wasn't sure if it was
called Secondary Stage or Second Stage. So, I did an on-line search. We found it
funny that the search brought up that "undescribed lobate ctenophore" under the same
key words.
The subject line that you found disturbing was block-copied directly from the
kushiku/kushikurage site. My friend and I find odd alphabets and squiggle-letters
(like the Desseret alphabet) funny. So, I block-copied that line from the site's
upper left hand corner directly into the Subject line, as a gag, but some of the
characters, comically, became only more distorted in the conversion. (You'll
recognize some of the characters, ...H...Ù.z...y...W..."...\ , carried over intact
if you compare the two.)
The letter was meant for my friend, but I hit the wrong Address button and it went
to PoetryEct. Sorry!
You're a better marine biologist than he or I, Candice. I didn't know that
~Lobatolampea tetragona~ was a hellyfisj! (I hope you didn't mean that maliciously,
i.e., to make me feel threatened, making a joke out of my name, which has many
letters in common with that word you wrote: jef---y--lli-h, i.e., that I'm some sort
of spineless Medusa sea creature (!).
I'll have to get back to your point about Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner in a bit, please, as
I'm just stringing the X-Mas tree with Beluga-sized cranberries right now. But---
the Gokar found poems ~are~ hilarious! I didn't mean to take away from that.
> I don't follow your leap to cartoon-bearing bombs of "tremendous
> collaborative investment," Jeffrey. The textual elements of the subject line
> and/or the message in virus-bearing e-mail are aimed only at manipulating
> the recipient into opening/activating its contents payload. The Bugs
> Bunny/Roadrunner cartoon in which characters are tricked into exploding
> bombs delivered as gifts would be a better parallel to your
> cartoon-inscribed bombs--on the grounds of artfulness too. If infected-mail
> texts are listed in a security advisory in a way that suggests nothing more
> or less than a really bad found poem, it says something about cultural
> relationships and values, but little else that I can see. These texts don't
> aspire to be artistic (unlike the code embedded in or attached to the same
> vehicle), but only artful. Aren't you confusing the literary-artistic
> employment of malware in such installations as you describe here with the
> primary destructive purpose of malicious code?
>
> I'm also baffled by your subsequent jellyfish post. What's your point? I
> found its subject line disturbing (in this context) and hope it wasn't meant
> maliciously, i.e., to make the list feel threatened.
>
> Candice
|