[syndicate] Re: Re: Subject: Re: From:

[Fr. M.]

At 15:18 11/02/2003 +0100, Fr. M. wrote:
suite:

>>is meant to be disruptive in its original context into a ghetto. On the

is it meant to be disruptive ? sometimes perhaps, but in most cases not.

 > decision which would encourage unthoughtful misuse of mailing lists as
> > springboard for abusive promotion instead of communities.
>
>Promotion of what/whom?

that would be my post againt crossposting which this one is not, yet.

I see your point, but still like certain monomaniac cross-postings &
>find them "valid" (whatever that means) as artistic expression. Jodi's
>postings are fine examples, and they're the most socially/politically
>incorrect you can imagine.

indeed, but jodi's are not crossposts, as far as I remember
they are disruptive because of the massive successive sends and that they 
don't directly engage in conversation, that is a different matter 
altogether  to the issue of crossposting (and I don't mean here 
unintentional sloppy xposting)

>into the Pleiade edition etc.pp.  (There's no way artists can or should
>dictate the way their art is being perceived/contextualized except
>through totalitarian copyright regimes.)

sure, but here it's not the artists "complaining" it's the other 
reader/critic/etc!

>I am a person with a high appreciation of the "codework" of jodi, mez,
>Sondheim, Gustin, Meskens and others,

they have very different approaches to this practice which myself hate to 
call "codework" and some of them I like and others dislike; frankly I do 
not see why they should be lumped together in what seems to me to be a very 
patchy genre...

>well. If you don't like to be put into this context - which, as with
>your reply to August Highland, would be a shame -, we can fix this.

I do not mind at all, and do not feel that I have any right to do so 
because I have been always struggling to devalue this "right"

later,
f.