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

[self re:ply.cator]

At 01:40 PM 3/11/2002 -0800, m wrote:
> >> >>why are there different mailing lists ?
> >> >n.deed, y r there? this _difference_ is telling........instead of
> >> operating via this divergent take, i c the net.work as a _whole_,
> >> operational in terms of infosharing & dispersal........
> >>
>
>to take this reasoning further you should hire a bulk email company and spam
>the whole world. seriously. has any artist ever done this?

not 2 my know.ledge......[doens't mean it hasn't been done, though;)]

just b.cause i perceive the net.work as a whole, a tapestry of 
potentialities of defor][com][m][unic][ation doesn't mean i advocate [or 
carry out] _blanket spamming_ activity.....this sys.t][n][e][t][m displays 
n.tricate s][ilicon][ymbiotic tendencies which shift & pulse data via 
n.finite variations...just as i don't c a mailing lists such as syndicate 
as static or x.clusively filled with a group of n.tities that r 
non-changing & there4 r all hyperaware of how the forum ][can][ 
function][s][, i don't perceive mailing list as non-communal in scope or 
][wo][manifestation.........

my. p][ercept][atterning. is. reticular.


>of course there
>would be serious repurcusions which may mean it is better for a non-entity?

i'm not sure.......

>like nn to do this. the possibilities are amusing to think about. or do you
>see your message as being more focused than this which would mean you
>concede to heirarchical data nodes?

not sure if i c _my message_ [& by this i take u 2 mean the fluttering 
code.symbology i use in my mezangelled wurks] as focused, but more 
flu][idic][vial.....do u c this as perpetuating hierarchical data methods?

mim.e.t][h][ically,
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
.... .               .???  .......