Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0292.  Wednesday, 19 April 1996.

(1)     From:   Marcello Cappuzzo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 13:42:41 +0200
        Subj:   Re: Fun Elegy, Reprised

(2)     From:   Jimmy Jung <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996  2:05pm
        Subj:   RE: Internet Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare;


(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcello Cappuzzo <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996 13:42:41 +0200
Subject:        Re: Fun Elegy, Reprised

On Tuesday, 16 Apr 1996, Kay Campbell Pilzer wrote:

[material omitted]

>                  I think it's time we did our own homework, or accept that
>(Occam-ish?  Holmesian?) conclusion:  when everything plausible has been
>omitted (i.e.:  this is a Bad Poem, so Our Hero couldn't have written it),
>then one must admit the implausible (i.e.:  that Our Hero wrote this Really
>Bad Poem!)

I'm afraid this is not a case of *nihil est tertium*--I'm sure I've heard
someone say "This Bad Poem was written by Our Hero, so it can't be but a Really
Good Bad Poem!"

Cheers,
Marcello Cappuzzo
University of Palermo

(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jimmy Jung <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Apr 1996  2:05pm
Subject:        RE: Internet Scholarly Editions of Shakespeare;

Michael Best <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > announced an internet/shakespeare effort.  I was
under the impression that the Folger was already doing something similar?