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

[bc]

> 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.


  i don't know and i am interested in finding out some of
  the decisions in creating the UD, as it is mysterious in
  ways. for me, i may have noticed the absence of the To:
  category, but for me it receded into the background as
  an issue, i am not sure why. my guess is that maybe it
  is that some of these texts are ubiquitous and therefore
  may have multiple (say, 6) To: addresses. another is may
  be more of that of compiling a newsletter (which is why i
  write this, as i've run into the same issue) and when tapping
  into newsfeeds, quoting attributions or sources of a text can
  be impossible, in that everyone has the same news, or it
  goes through certain predictable ecosystems of info-flows.
  thus, the To: (or, originator) may not be critical as a 'source'
  but in this case, it may be much different from a newsletter.

  the reason i state this is because i read a few of these first
  UDigests and then they all 'felt' the same to me, aesthetically,
  so i would look at them that way. until the point of whether or
  not the scroll through the whole post just to see it all was an
  issue of the value of the texts shown. that is, is it worth it to
  scroll through this 'stuff' (neutrally-valued) at times arose as
  an issue. then, in terms of aesthetics, although not a php or
  cgi/perl programmer, it almost seemed like the ascii-texts
  were equivalents to the commented-out sections in coded
  programs and scripting, which are indecipherable unless
  one reads the language, and thus, it is like a sampling of
  a language, or a style, or a type of approach to writing on-
  line, or to personalities or personas, or the way ideas can
  be carried in text, image, and numbers.

  one thing it has done, in my experience, has shown what
  and where things are at in terms of boundaries in writing.
  but i'm not sure i'm getting added-value by the consecutive
  UDigests, in that, they are all different, but all somewhat the
  same, in different yet similar ways. that is, aesthetically. or
  so that is one view of it.

  the juxtaposition to this and NN's work is of interest because,
  as i think it was stated, it may not be workable in this format.
  maybe that brings up an issue of control, or controllability,
  or even an experiment or test bed. for me, although a bit
  shy to ask, i've always wondered why NN does not have
  her own mailing list, and such works as the UD also bring
  this into question for me at least. that is, maybe the e-mail
  distribution paradigm and lists paradigm could be re-ordered
  or programmed, with content channels, not lists, but a meta-
  list with feeds, which one can check boxes for what content
  they do and do not want, though this may be irrelevant in
  terms of the UD, it may be related to moderating content.

  and, maybe non-moderated lists are like a straight-pipe
  with pure flow, and moderated lists are like a funnel/seive,
  yet i wonder if the UD is a consequence of attempting to
  meld these different list models (possibly through aesthetics).
bc