quest for public moderation
human being
human at electronetwork.org
Sun Jan 11 09:48:00 CET 2004
> From: human being
> Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:41:21 PM US/Central
> To: nettime at bbs.thing.net
> Subject: moderator- question
>
> curious if I could get a sense of whether
> nettime will publish something in near
> enough real-time so that I could send it
> out by this channel, in addition to one
> other, or if i should skip it. it would be
> good for nettime, it is believed, though
> that is not up for me to decide of course.
> opportunities to participate that is. please
> let me know. tomorrow is the likely time.
> thanks. brian
From: Nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:10:12 AM US/Central
To: human being
Cc: nettime at bbs.thing.net
Subject: Re: moderator- question
Hi Brian,
there are multiple people moderating nettime, usually approving things
several times a day. If a couple of ours is 'near real time' for you,
then nettime is ok. If you need it quicker, there are no guarantees.
But,
generally, as you know, it also depends on how often people download
their
mail. Some do it all the time, some only once a day, and others every
couple of days, so it's very hard to speak of 'real time' in email
lists.
_____
<timing delay>
>>>> # <t-l> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>>>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>>>> # more info: major_t at t.thing.net and "info t-l" in the msg body
>>>> # archive: http://t.nettime.org contact: t at t.thing.net
...
From: "nettime's_spam_kr!k!t" <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 8:34:28 AM US/Central
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net
Subject: <nettime> but wait! there's more!
Reply-To: "nettime's_spam_kr!k!t" <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
From: [some spammer]
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:04:23 -0300
Subject: RE: Perfect gift for 2004
Loading, Please Wait...
>>
</timing delay>
<submission>
From: human being
Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 11:40:26 PM US/Central (~midnight)
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net, dabrooks at nytimes.com
Cc: editorial at nytimes.com, chatterbox at slate.com,
DRUDGE at DRUDGEREPORT.COM, dtalbot at salon.com
Subject: Era of Self-Deception II/II
</submission>
> From: human being
> Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 12:02:57 AM US/Central (~midnight)
> To: nettime at bbs.thing.net
> Subject: request
>
> please publish ASAP previous
> article for personal safety related
> to issues of speed/info transit and
> severity of issues involved. thanks.
> (era of self-deception ii/ii)
From: Nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:10:05 AM US/Central (~noon)
To: human being
Cc: nettime at bbs.thing.net
Subject: Re: request
Hey Brian,
what's the problem? I don't get it. _____
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0401/msg00012.html
> From: human being
> Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:29:39 PM US/Central
> To: Nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
> Subject: Re: request
>
>
> there was a follow-up post, that was
> II/II (era of self-deception ii/ii) I sent
> which has serious repercussions if
> it did not get sent out quickly to a wide
> audience, and never got sent out now.
<resubmit>
From: human being
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:44:40 PM US/Central
To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net
Subject: Era of Self-Deception II/II
</resubmit>
> From: human being
> Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 4:41:12 PM US/Central
> To: nettime at bbs.thing.net
> Subject: question
>
> _____, will you let me know if you
> are not going to publish the e-mail,
> i will look for another forum in which
> to send it out, then. thanks. _____
<note>
question not addressed by same moderator,
non-decision arrives 17 hours later...
</note>
From: nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:14:03 AM US/Central
To: human being
Subject: Re: question
hi, brian --
i'm not sure whether _____ got back to you, but my own sense -- not
involved in deciding whether to approve this or not -- was that it
just isn't worth it. david brooks is THE most boring editirialist
ever. the NYT had no idea what they were getting into when they
hired krugman ('you say he's an economist at princeton? that sounds
safe enough!'), who promptly spun out of control AND developed a
deeply loyal international readership. so when it came time again
to get a new editorialist, they got a guy who's 100% stepfordized.
imo.
cheers,
_
> From: human being
> Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:27:13 AM US/Central
> To: nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
> Subject: Re: question
>
> hi _, thanks for the input. to me this is one
> of those more literal publish or perish moments
> as it has some political repercussions, and with
> no channel to send through then few will know
> of the basics. felt it fell within cultural politics of
> the net, tactical media and the rest, in practice,
> that is. also, am going to be sending to the following
> and will once again cc' nettime-l. to me, if nettime-l
> cannot publish such work, i would find it hard to
> reconcile as sometimes things need to go through
> that someone may not agree with, IMO. free speech.
> if forum is appropriate. 9/11, bush knew, that's the
> point. in any case, here's who is going to get the
> file, also, since nettime is stalling on it...
<unsubscript>
From: human being <human at electronetwork.org>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:41:30 AM US/Central
To: majordomo at bbs.thing.net
Subject:
unsubscribe nettime-l
--
>>>> unsubscribe nettime-l
Succeeded.
>>>>
</unsubscript>
<resubmit>
> From: human being
> Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:02:46 AM US/Central
> To: vice.president at whitehouse.gov, dabrooks at nytimes.com,
> editors at thepublicinterest.com, letters at reason.com,
> Gillespie at reason.com, editors at washingtonmonthly.com,
> jsullum at reason.com, vp at dynamist.com, editor at spectator.co.uk,
> letters at spectator.co.uk, kagan at ceip.org, mkinsley at msn.com,
> novakevans at aol.com, dcmeetings at cfr.org, national at cfr.org,
> mideast at janes.com, backtalk at motherjones.com,
> editorial at progressive.org, Facts at GlobeAndMail.ca
> Cc: awolfson at thepublicinterest.com, ccurran at thepublicinterest.com,
> bconway at thepublicinterest.com, earchitzel at thepublicinterest.com,
> leserbriefe at spiegel.de, letters at time.com, OpJournal.help at dowjones.com,
> jcarroll at sfchronicle.com, peterk11 at comcast.net,
> jromenesko at poynter.org, literaryrevolution at yahoo.com,
> almaeena at arabnews.com, times at iranian.com, communications at cfr.org,
> letters at economist.com, economist at neodata.com, institute at thenation.com,
> associates at thenation.com, MTP at NBC.com, Letters at GlobeAndMail.ca,
> newsroom at GlobeAndMail.ca, dbrumberg at ceip.org,
> submissions at alternet.org, fair at fair.org, support at csmonitor.com,
> nettime-l at bbs.thing.net, comments at paknews.com, newsonline at bbc.co.uk,
> editor at reuters.com, letters at pstripes.osd.mil, dicksonp at stripes.osd.mil
> Subject: Era of Self-Deception II/II
>
> Mr. David Brooks,
>
> There is a need to write once again regarding
> your article in the New York Times, which is in
> today's local newspaper: entitled: The Era of Distortion
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html
</resubmit>
> From: human being <human at electronetwork.org>
> Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 12:24:13 PM US/Central
> To: nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
> Cc: ( )
> Subject: request for masthead
>
>
> Hi _, _____. I would like to request
> a list of the current editors of nettime-l
> for my private archives. I think there
> were a few others, I will file it away,
> nothing will be done with e-mails, etc.
> just need a record of those at the helm
> during the nettime of this decision.
> thanks in advance. brian
From: Nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:19:14 PM US/Central
To: human being
Cc: ( )
Subject: Re: request for masthead
Brian,
While i like your writings i start getting annoyed by the surrounding
messages. Can you please stop putting pressure on us?
-> I put ( ) in the cc, did you see?
Thanks,
_____
> From: human being <human at electronetwork.org>
> Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:25:39 PM US/Central
> To: Nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
> Cc: ( )
> Subject: Re: request for masthead
>
> (i do this alot, not intential, but i forgot ( ) was
> not automatically put into the CC and thus resending.
> human error. apologies)
>
> _____, I unsubbed from the list so that will not
> be a problem. All I am asking for is who the
> moderators are during this time. If it is not
> possible to share this information, that is okay,
> it was only a request. As for pressure, I will not
> be putting pressure on you, it is unfortunate
> it is perceived to be this way, when 50% of
> my posts have to be resent to ever be posted.
> Thus, it is out of habit, probably. In any case,
> no need to continue this. Did not mean anything
> by putting ( ) in, as I do not know who the
> moderators actually are who made this decision
> thus thought it would not hurt to send to ( ),
> though I do not expect that to change anything
> or to add any pressure. I will cc' ( ) one more
> time, just for the record, and then it is complete.
> Hopefully everything is taken care of then. Brian
<note>
posts said sometimes lost to 'spam filters'
</note>
From: Nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:54:06 PM US/Central
To: human being
Subject: Re: request for masthead
Brian,
The names of the current moderators are on the info page of the
nettime.org website. I am one out of four.
From my point of view a main problem - it is extremely trivial -
concerning the approval of your messages is the length of your
messages. As a non native english speaking person it takes me extremly
long reading your mails. Beside that, they are so detailed that
somebody like me, who has just a rough idea of US related structures in
all the different fields you refer to, gets sometimes confused in
interpreting them.
Practically this means, that it's mainly a matter of time management
between the mods concerning the time of distributing of your messages.
The others may have another sight of it.
_____
I dont know if you got it, but i posted your message (prior reading your
request of mod names and the info of your unsubscription, which i am
sorry
for. imo, you shouldn't - i know thats arrogant to say)
> <comment> and in the 'next 5 minutes', 54 seconds....
>
> Brooks on Friday 6PM TV broadcast for weekly debate
>
> (estimated 41 hours, 13 minutes, 39 seconds elapsed)
>
> David Brooks has 10 minutes airtime on PBS TV
> Newshour, spreading falsities debunked in essay
> with false logic, propaganda strategy cracked open.
> hundreds of thousands to millions of .US TV viewers
> fed lies, distortions, agendas that could be countered.
>
>
> </comment>
From: nettime <nettime at bbs.thing.net>
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:34:01 PM US/Central
To: human being
Subject: Re: request for masthead
brian, you can do whatever you want, but from my perspective
your mood swings are very, very palpable, and the noise that
surrounds some of your messages seems to correlate with cer-
tain phases of those swings.
we're all very busy with other things, and it's the rare ex-
ception when we consult with each other about a message. this
is occasionally a source of tension, because we've never fig-
ured out a sensible way to communicate on a regular basis, so
sometimes messages sit for days or even weeks in the inbox --
then i approve them and _____ hassles me, or _____ does some-
thing and i hassle him, or whatever. that's the reality of how
nettime works; when you get impatient, your messages assume all
kinds of things (scheduling, reliable consultation) that aren't
what goes on. (for example, contacting _____: he hasn't been in-
volved in running nettime in over five years.)
anyway, i'm sorry you unsubbed, but i don't think it really has
much to do with anything we have or haven't done. i hope that
you sub again soon.
cheers,
_
> # <t-l> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: major_t at t.thing.net and "info t-l" in the msg body
> # archive: http://t.nettime.org contact: t at t.thing.net
anyway, i'm sorry you unsubbed, but i don't think it really has
much to do with anything we have or haven't done. i hope that
you sub again soon.
>>>> request for public moderation
From: Autoresponder at WhiteHouse.GOV
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 12:40:59 PM US/Central
To: human at electronetwork.org
Subject: Re: Era of Self-Deception II/II
Thank you for emailing Vice President Cheney. Your ideas and comments
are very
important to him.
Unfortunately, because of the large volume of email received, the Vice
President cannot personally respond to each message. However, the White
House
staff considers and reports citizen ideas and concerns.
Again, thank you for your email. Your interest in the work of Vice
President
Cheney and the administration is appreciated.
Sincerely,
The White House Office of E-Correspondence
More information about the Syndicate
mailing list