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

[self re:ply.cator]

At 03:45 PM 3/10/2002 +0100, f wrote:

>of course, everybody knows that I am an advocate of list disruption, the 
>difference is that I think that ultimately this should be beneficial to 
>the list and not to the disrupter alone.

fred,

i'm curious as 2 how u distinguish the difference? firstly, i'd lurve u 2 
d.fine _beneficial_ in terms of how it affects list cohesion & function, & 
how this individualisation of subscriber identification can operate along 
this benefit-deficit scale? also how this affects the pulse communication 
function that most list labor under.........?

>the huge difference is the cross posting
>cross posting is the bane of mailing lists

y, fred? u seem 2 b aligning yr perception with.in a niche that advocates 
members of  various mailing lists live under the i][a][ll.usion that the 
net.work perpetuates this insularism, that every1 who is n.terested in 
b.ing subbed 2 various mailing lists x.ist in a mono-data-directed vaccum 
that can only cope with _1_ manifest x.posure to information.......that 
those who r only n.terested in connecting 2 1 nodepoint, via _1_ list 
forum, do not have the right 2 b x.posed 2 data b.cause of the 
_n.con][ned][venience this wood cause 2 those more -connected_ via multiple 
nodes........r u really n.terested in promoting x.clusion & data closure 
b.cause of this top-down hierarchical slant in terms of network function?



i. am. stained. with. repetition.
[re.peat]
::the chip.mark of the net.
::][kulture][work::abbreviated strokes::sampling::a][scii][graffiti::code 
langues::bass.house::jung][le][mantras
.all .][t][h][r][ive .in .he][a][re.....



>why are there different mailing lists ?
>with (hopefully) different subscribers, different topics, different 
>functionalities, different roots and different histories ?


ah, the hub.                   d i f f e r e n c e   [n.sert perpetual loop]

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........

this difference, this reliance on the in box as a box, not as a 
][link][node........

HISTORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????

f, surely u jest here, histories????
history doesn't x.ist, it is a fiction @ best........

>cross posting can never be justified

f, _u think|perceive this_. this is not a statement of fact [or 
|||||||||||||||history|||||||||||].

>because it nullifies the very nature of each mailing list, because it 
>specifically adresses none of them.

i c it as _ratifiying_ the nature of mailing lists.......n][et][ature as 
d.fined by connexion, communicative points in an x.tendible net of flow & 
flux......do u want 2 x.clude those not so ego-n.trenched in this 
net.baggage? if _xXx_ is subbed to syndicate but not 2 _reader-list_, and 
info is not cross-posted due to x.clusionary individualisation via blanket 
withdrawal of crucial info due 2 justifications such as u yr espousing, do 
u c that _xXx_ is then x.cluded from x.posure 2 info _from which_ they can 
then choose 2 x.pose themselves 2?

[filters. r. yr|the. x.clusionists. friend.]


>therefore it turns the attention on the cross poster only (having 
>discarded any and every notion of communality) and it becomes obvious that 
>the cross poster is only willing to momentarily confiscate the _numbers 
>and that is what I find terribly abusive.

oh f,

do u c that yr perception here is crucial 2 the formation of yr point 
above? do u c that u think that cross-posting hi-lights the ego-definition 
of the poster in such a way that their characteristics are etched all over 
the forum?

i. offer. a different. view.

these numbers that u assume r being overwritten [due 2 
non-responsivity|lurking b.haviour etc], this community that is b.ing [in 
yr view] blanked out due 2 the nature of x.tended information x.posure is 
d.fined by wot x.actly? wot makes up the community here, in this net.worked 
area? is it repetition of dialogical conventions? participation via 
manifest post activity? access 2 information? access 2 communication via 
other enitiy participation? wot?


>not that it bothers me that much beyond the fact that I find it either 
>willingly manipulative or lacking in reflexion about networking indeed

it bothers me greatly that u'd offer these opinions & not firstly c that 
they r in fact _drenched with yr individualistic-ego driven spin_...as r my 
opinions....wot matters here 4 me is that this _community_ of mailing lists 
[in my case, network connectors] r being bandied around as cohesive 
structures in which individuals autonomously activate data _without_ any 
nuanced understanding of the mechanisms via which these communities 
act\interactive\x.ist.......

u need 2 x.plain the community function 2 me, within the confines of a 
mailing list forum.

[pre.tend - or ack.no.ledge- i. am. an. idiot.]

>>>~ a signature
>>
>>comme toujours
>
>well, peut etre, but it seems that _everything must be explained
>(gosh!)

absolutely. if u start a multilogue like this f, b prepared 2 
x.plain|n.gage in multilogues. it is 4 the good of the _community_ after 
all.....;)

x.tendibly,
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
.... .               .???  .......