*sigh*

[[g]Ash[+Bi]Shopping]

Subject: Request to mailing list empyre rejected
From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
To: netwurker at hotkey.net.au
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:56:10 +1000
X-BeenThere: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
List-Id: soft_skinned_space <empyre.lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sender: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au


Your request to the empyre mailing list


Posting of your message titled "RE: [-empyre-] Size matters?"


has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:


"hi mez, although I understand the argument here re preservation of an
original netwurked piece in all its ephemeral aesthetic, i wonder what
your message is in the context of this discussion? i mean, can you
develop a stronger argument about netwurking as 'beyond the craft
object' as something that is somehow similar to or the same as list
culture itself? I find that your argument deals with the cultural
meanings of form which is fine but it might be more tightly linked to
the discussion at hand before submitting especially as it is
inflammatory re the editors of beehive. even though i am sympathetic
to your view of the situation it is my job as moderator to keep more
personal stabs off the list and i feel this is very close to such.
hope you dont mind reworking this a bit, best, cm"


Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au


--

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:28:20 +1000
To: empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
From: "[g]Ash[+Bi]Shopping" <netwurker at hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list empyre rejected


*sigh*

i find this assessment fairly questionable [ie unwarranted censorship] on 2 
counts/fronts:

1) that this text has been published as part of a academic review-based 
paper previously, and that it was peer reviewed without any of this 
"personal attack" read-in you perceive/are loading into the text. this 
[attempt at] reposting at empyre not only hi-lights certain contextual 
aspects relevant 2 the thread itself, but also [which is y i prefaced the 
text with the salient url] illustrating a method of counteracting this type 
of historicizing/institutional co-opting via the format of the journal in 
which it was published [node-based].
2) in light of melinda rackham's previous posting hi-lighting the fact that 
playing devils advocating was essentially a worthwhile position.

anyway, please remove the post. even if you agreed to publish the post [ie 
after giving your rejection a substantial rethinking] I would request that 
you in fact did not. i'm incredibly fed-up with this type of implicit 
censorship, this type of blanket targeting of certain posters + 
communication methods via "safe"/legitimatization-slanted perspectives [or 
worse, self-regulated along covert censorship lines]. Stronger argument you 
say? I'm quite capable of constructing woteva method of argument you deem 
adequate, but will not do it especially given the seemingly arbitrary 
standards loaded on2 other subscribers/posters.

i'll go back 2 either trying 2 n.gage said issues within an acceptable 
non-affective safety-gloss front as seems 2 be mandated or just not post.

*shaking head in resignation*

--

User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:56:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list empyre rejected
From: Christina McPhee <christina112 at earthlink.net>
To: "[g]Ash[+Bi]Shopping" <netwurker at hotkey.net.au>
CC: Empyre-Owner <empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>


Well, geez, mez, you are giving my personal opinion too much credibility.
Relax... I am not the only moderator. So what if I raised an objection?
Big deal. If you believe in your position just stand by it. That's
convincing in itself. Think about it before bailing out of the discussion.
Why are you allowing your views to be defeated ? I just suggested a
reworking in the interests, I guess I would say, of politesse, but I am not
your editor. As moderator, it was not about substance but style and tone
that motivated my caveat. Whether you post this or not does not affect my
high regard for your work or the course of empyre if you will pardon the bad
pun, or the legitimacy of your pov-- rather, it may make a difference to
your use of your power. If you don?t stand up for your views, you silence
yourself. Speak truth to power (the paresthesiastic speech, cf Foucault).



Fondly, c

--

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:20:35 +1000
To: Christina McPhee <christina112 at earthlink.net>
From: "[g]Ash[+Bi]Shopping" <netwurker at hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Request to mailing list empyre rejected

At 11:56 AM 12/08/2004, you wrote:
 >>
Well, geez, mez, you are giving my personal opinion too much credibility.
 >>

christina,

i am giving your personal opinion the *required* amount of credibility, 
given that you are texting ur so called personal position within a 
moderators power position. ur inability to differentiate the 2 is quite 
disturbing.

 >>
Relax... I am not the only moderator. So what if I raised an objection?
Big deal.
 >>

if you are now saying that this position has been reached by the moderator 
team, then please feel free to forward my position onto them [in fact, I'd 
prefer it, and will forward these series of postings on2 them as i am 
seriously dissapointed with your handing of this in terms of the power 
dynamics it displays in relation to overall empyre moderatorship]. if, on 
the other hand, u reached this rejection conclusion by yourself, then 
please accept the consequences of your actions.

the deal is _big_ because you hold a position of power as moderator. there 
are subtle inflections of control implied in censoring a post. i have 
moderated 2 lists in the past, and realise this. don't you?

 >>
If you believe in your position just stand by it. That's
convincing in itself. Think about it before bailing out of the discussion.
 >>

this is markedly diferent to your previous post that required me to 
construct a "stronger argument". i could flip your logic assertions here 
and ask *y* u are quite content ot display the very behaviour ur leveling 
at me in this reply? [ie changing your perspective from 1 of advocating a 
rewrite 2 one of if i stand by my "position" then its convincing??]

this type of hierarchical pinpointing + fight-aesthetic only ratifies that 
you have yet to substantially reflect on your position of [co]moderator and 
its trickle-down effects on subscribers you choose 2 exercise this mix of 
personal opinion/quasi-moderator stance.

highly disappointing.

 >>
Why are you allowing your views to be defeated ?
 >>

i'm not allowing you to flatten my behaviour into your win-lose dichotomy, 
christine. i'm not interested in defeat [and hence implied] victory. you 
can emulate that dynamic if you so wish, but i will not. this indicates 
your intitial objection to the so-called "personal attack" perspective 
perfectly, unfortunately.

 >>
I just suggested a
reworking in the interests, I guess I would say, of politesse, but I am not
your editor.
 >>

indeed not. unfortunately, if you offer an alternative of "i'll post this 
only if you rewrite it" then you, by inherent suggestion, are slotting 
yourself into that very position, yes?

 >>
As moderator, it was not about substance but style and tone
that motivated my caveat. Whether you post this or not does not affect my
high regard for your work or the course of empyre if you will pardon the bad
pun, or the legitimacy of your pov-- rather, it may make a difference to
your use of your power.
 >>

again, this stratification into a bald retrograde power dynamic *shaking 
head 1nce more*.....

 >>
If you don?t stand up for your views, you silence
yourself. Speak truth to power (the paresthesiastic speech, cf Foucault).
 >>

+ if you labour within a theoretical dynamic that ratifies both the polar 
extremes of win/lose standup/liedown, then you validate this very perspective.

lying down,
mez.

    .living_iN_avat.r(esidency)ix 101.1_
-
-[sharing hug corpses + detriments bones]
-[i die.binary+seek.u.thru.monitor.ing]

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
http://www.livejournal.com/users/netwurker/