[syndicate] Re: Subject: Re: From:

[Peter Luining]

Friday, February 7, 2003, 12:22:01 AM, bc wrote:


bc>   one comment: for me, i thought of it less as a collage of
bc>   these types of posts (that otherwise may be filtered by
bc>   Nettime moderators), and as such, it seemed a way to
bc>   open the list-door to such content, as a type of curatorial
bc>   net-art practice (using these words to try to approximate
bc>   what i consider a possible intent). thus, this 'curation' of
bc>   off-list e-mails, reappropriated/recontextualized may or
bc>   may not also be relevant to the issue of the To: header.

bc>   in that sense, i thought it may be a way for NN or other
bc>   posts to get into the ecosystem, yet within a bounded or
bc>   'virtual sandbox' realm.


I see your point, but if you look at it the way you describe it above,
you could also argue that there's something wrong. The To: header
points the way to the source, for example this list. Taking it away it
makes it easier to get it accepted, or maybe is the the only way to
get accepted in the ecosystem, by the sender (From:) of the message.
For the reason it could also be seen as an act of sensoring.