a controversy arose concerning Geof Huth's piece on David Baptiste Chirot. I've hardly caught up on blog world, as the work of unshambling the new abode takes precedence, so I needn'tweigh in. and I won't, except to point to this reply by David, posted as a comment at Mark Young's Blog. in this controversy, at least, there aint no dickheads. but why I'm pointing centres on David's style, if that's the right word. I'm guessing he didn't spellcheck. I'm not sure, for it's not a matter of exxtrra letterss, or letetrs out of ordre, but mostly spaces in the wrong places. which is no simulation of David's use of frottage in his art--is it?--but still, it suggests a similar natural rawness. and to read these disturbances produces a new field, superimposed upon the one in which the expected meanings occur. where, that is, David is 'saying' something. which makes me think of how flarf produces a similar superimposition of fields. for instance, this piece by Gary Sullivan resonates within its bad English. there is no bad English, really. superimposition, or collided trajectories, or simultaneity. we read what Gary writes, but also the original voices. there resides the likewise with David's reply. I find this odd, low profile controversy concerning David and Geof fascinating.