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

[self re:ply.cator]

At 10:21 AM 3/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>At 10:36 11/03/02 +1100, self re:ply.cator wrote:
> >i'm curious as 2 how u distinguish the difference? firstly, i'd lurve u 
> 2 d.fine _beneficial_ in
>
>I refuse. (go figure it for yourself, it's easy)

if i figure this out 4 myself, how then can i perceive wot u mean by 
beneficial 2 the mailing lists as a whole? i c benefit in many avenues, not 
just a personal-correspondence model that u have said is only allowable in 
terms of x.tracting/engineering meaning on a forum such as this 1......


> >>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,
>
>it bloody does. only micro-structures can survive around here
>
> >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?
>
>not
>at
>all
>(?!)

so u do c that by mandating the absence of cross-postings that it could 
x.clude ppl from b.ing x.posed to data?

> >>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........
>
>this is good.
>look at nettime (this is bad)
>
> >f, _u think|perceive this_. this is not a statement of fact [or 
> |||||||||||||||history|||||||||||].
>
>I have explained why. You don't seem to be able to explain why not
>it seems that this is crucial

crucial 2 wot?


> >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?
>
>I'm not excluding anyone, I just want to be part of certain MLs and others not

ok,. its a real shame u don't understand the wider m.plications of this.

> > 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?
>
>I find this incorrect.

do u. how so?

> >>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]
>
>there can be no such thing as a community of mailing lists

ok, glad u clarified that. this opinion of yrs makes yr perspective much 
clearer now.

> >u need 2 x.plain the community function 2 me, within the confines of a 
> mailing list forum.
>
>ok, now try this:
>unsub from all mailing lists except one
>this how this transforms your participation totally
>
>of course, I suggest syndicate
>
>it is a very simple exercise (which I have done myself) and it is most 
>effective

4 u i have no doubt that it is, f.

][regret][fully,
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
.... .               .???  .......