[syndicate] discussion place.ment

[self re:ply.cator]

At 01:03 PM 3/13/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>At 18:37 13/03/2002 +1100, self re:ply.cator wrote:
>>i had _assumed_ that f held certain views that he doesn't. this does not 
>>mean i think him idiotic; it means that _i find_ his perceptions  geared 
>>along an axis that i find constricted & more traditionally-oriented than 
>>i had primarily assumed,
>
>this is where the discussion does not take place

ok........

>because I find that what you do (eg crosspost and participate to "solo 
>shows" for agricola de cologne, asking for permission to post to an ML 
>that you find important) is a simple repeat of trad art practices

.....so c u my participation in a solo show and my cross-posting as 
ratifying a traditionalist art perspective? fair enuff....how do u view the 
the n.hanced|x.tended framework that the net.work offers & that transposes 
& shifts this 'tradition' within a radically differing environment|method 
of data dispersal? that this _simple repetition_ of trad art practcies is 
different if only in terms of the processual nuancing of the comm modes in 
which it is presented?

>and this is a direction you took, say, a year ago or two ago not more.

sorry f, don't understand this...r u saying i started to cross-post a year 
or 2 ago? i have been crossposting my cod][n][e][t][.works since 95.....????

>I only wished to alert you that this is contrary to net.work practices 
>but... 'tis all!

..well, we obviously differ here.

code.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
.... .               .???  .......