[syndicate] Re: Yes, but is it art?

[self re:ply.cator]

At 09:31 PM 3/9/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>At 09:52 09/03/2002 +1100, you wrote:
>
>>http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,3909023%255E7642,00.html
>>
>>Yes, but is it art?
>>Cath Hart
>>08mar02
>
>Dear Mez,
>
>I do not get the point of what you do anymore.

this is a shame, f....

>Particularily this announcement that has been cross posted all over the 
>place is a bit too much to take, I find.

f, the cross-posting is ][more than][ necessary.......

can u d.fine "all.over.the.place?"

....because of the closure of list forums 2 anything but closed-down 
predicated theory/discussion/banal correspondence, reiteration of 
"acceptable" dialogue that x.cludes the multilogue, lauding 
individualisation rather than entity-bouncing via replicated channels of 
information that offer a completely different model 4 data dispersal......

the cross-posting is necessary.............do u now add.here 2 lists 4 the 
fact that they provide n.dividual niches 4 perpetuation of culture along a 
individualist axis? is there now a hierarchical structure that u'd advocate 
regarding postings? is this info-threading via the ecosystem that we call 
the net now regarded as spam b.cause of the politically correct nature of 
these lists that accept repeditive monological personal-correspondance as 
the norm? is this perpetuation of real-time regurgitative communication 
structure wot u yearn 2 have in yr inbox?

do u even think about the communication structure that gels these lists 
2gether? is yr individual/monogaze enuff 2 shift thru the idea of perpetual 
information in flux, a curve of data that can be dipped in2 via x.tended & 
repetitious communication?

>to me it is perfectly true that what you are doing is definitely _not 
>engaging in the various discourses of the lists that you are on but simply 
>use them and the subscribers who, sometimes, are also subcribed to several 
>of those lists hence receive the stuff x times, exactly the same stuff x 
>times and probably delete it x-1 times at best.

again, a shame......if all u c here is self-pro.motional activity, then so 
b it...........this is far from the truth from my end, but i guess it 
doesn't matter about n.tention anymore...u'll c wot u c.......the fact that 
u c the act of deletion & x.tended x.posure as negative says it all........

>now sending this one in the same manner, cross posted, would enlighten the 
>fact that all you are trying to achieve is getting your name mentioned x 
>times to the y number of subscribers of the x lists you cross post to and 
>that is it.

again, i'd say absolutely no.......i'm not sure if u're subbed to webartery 
or wryting or arc-hive but in these avenues the info-sprawl is accepted...i 
guess i'm add.vocating areas that sings information as valuable, as 
resources 2 b treasured & a acting as a [source]pool of communally 
accessible material ...if 1 n.dividual is x.posed 2 or 3 times 2 the 
information, then they should b responsible enuff 2 take appropriate 
action...... 2 tell u the truth i'm sick 2 the teeth that ppl r n.tent on 
interpretation of multiple x.posures 2 info.mation or code-d.rived 
variations via perpetuation of data that is drawn back into a canonistic 
idea of absorption & meaning x.traction.........

.the under.writing. of. code. is repetitious.
[dis(ex)tended  language modes r now outlawed in favour of an individuals 
x.posure 2 infodatums].

>why would anyone care about being labeled art on the internet ?

n.deed, f. y n.deed.

cr][h][ushed,
mez


.           .    ....         .....
  net.wurker][mez][
[trans. loose. (e)NT][ity][]
[sel][l][f  reply.cation]

{

www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
  www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
.... .               .???  .......