Re: spam back!!

Donna Harraway makes a point somewhere about exploiting the new discursive
structures of capital for radical purposes. Not only does she suggests it is
a puritanist conciet of radical politics to morally abstain from the
maleficient tactics employed by capitalists to ply their unholy trade, but
that it is akin to strategic suicide. Wouldn't the most appropriate response
to this covert spam attack be a reciprocal, anti-capital, guerilla strike?
How about an impenetrable, prolix account of how capital is naturalised by
the info supertollway?

At 01:58 PM 7/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Folks:
>
>	I'd like to reiterate the point made by Malgosia about the spam
>mail. Let's make sure that we don't start a discussion either about how to
>respond to spam. 
>
>N. Cordova
>cordova@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, sam binkley wrote:
>
>> I'm glad malgosia and Peter have opened up a discussion on the spam
attack that came 
>> through a few days ago.  I hate spam.  I hate all uninvited advertising.
If I have to 
>> substantiate this on Foucauldian terms, I would say that spam is a
normative apparatus, 
>> infiltrating and inscribing the developments on this list, but that
really doesn't change 
>> the fact that I hate spam. 
>> 
>> Can we spam back? Why doesn't everyone on this list return a spam message
telling this 
>> "blood sucking asshole" (a very appropriate phrase) to fuck off and leave
our list alone? I 
>> deleted my original spam, so I can't do that  myself. 
>> 
>> 
>> sam binkely
>> 
>
>
>