[syndicate] Baudrillard on riots, on EU referendum, etc.

[Frederic Madre]

I consider it an insult to state publicly lies such as yours

First: I never was, am not and never will be subscribed to Spectre. Nor am I
posting to it.
Second: I have not even looked at a cover of Les Inrocks for over 10 years.
Nor am I concerned with Arnaud Viviant.

Apologies, please.

f.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sympa Owner [mailto:sympa at kilby.copyleft.no] On Behalf 
> Of Aliette Guibert
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:58 PM
> To: syndicate at anart.no
> Subject: Re: [syndicate] Baudrillard on riots, on EU referendum, etc.
> 
> First:
> 
> a proof of jealousy and competition from your part (where I 
> am not, I am
> just on the question of the sense) you are so stupid in deny 
> that you have
> reposted on spectre a translation that is coming from my own 
> post (even from
> a "french list" where I would not take place for example fight or
> multitudes - specialists to repost without the reference of 
> the original
> mail so that it is possible to think they are the source - whatever of
> another one) ; as I sign my original emails by certain 
> information that
> another would not do I know of my proper source sign the reappearing
> references in the new posts:)
> 
> Even they would have verify in the same mechanical translator 
> (as it gives
> synonymous it is possible to recognize it) to modify a bit 
> the translation,
> it stays that the title of the column and the link wikipedia 
> to supreme NTM
> it is from my own - from the first source online:)))
> 
> But more, you give a fake version of the text where they have 
> falsify the
> last sentence !!! - if it was coming from multitudes it could be the
> perpetual revisionist explanation... and you under another 
> pseudo you are
> the spy of the French lists wanted as power.
> 
> The missing sentence of the revisionist version forwarded by 
> X on the list X
> then by you (which would not have been misinformed of the 
> original text) to
> the list spectre, of the article published in Libé and 
> forward by me it is
> simply:
> 
> " I would have liked well a little more joyful conclusion but which? "
> 
> Just before he signed. An why this ultimate sentence has 
> disappeared of the
> original version quote of my own source: please?
> 
> It is not of me it is of the respective authors to whom you make your
> eternal shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Second:
> 
> The third mail more I said I was not the point to left of 
> this day, it was
> on the explanation because I am not opposing just for 
> opposition: But on the
> question of ideas. And at last, as I am not outside but 
> inside and at work,
> hearing of the coming emails, I decided that not answering to 
> the second
> item 515  following the quote of the first one 121 - 
> specially the second
> which was an object of Arnaud Vivian (Inrocks) in a line of Cahiers de
> mediology and which still can be read online - it would be to have no
> radical argument front of such radical opposite text. But 
> there was a lot of
> arguments. So I have decided to get more time to answer here. As a
> discussion it is a discussion - for a time of an interactive list.
> 
> Shut up groupie and double agent spy of lists... (hope you 
> would not be a
> spy in matter of private sources for example servers, 
> traditional links in
> free GNU or wiki - and so on?)
> 
> A/L.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ctgr-pavu.com" <ctgr at free.fr>
> To: <syndicate at anart.no>
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [syndicate] Baudrillard on riots, on EU referendum, etc.
> 
> 
> "last post for today"
> did you say 3 posts ago.
> 
> do what you say,
> at least ONCE in your life,
> and we may BELIEVE what you say,
> at least ONCE.
> 
> --
> ROUSTON YOGI
> -/ of course, a smileTwit will guaranty your succes in any 
> enterprise !
> /-
> 
> Le 20 nov. 05, à 14:58, Aliette Guibert a écrit :
> 
> > Dear Saint Paul
> >
> > no commercial use of the texts without permission
> 
> 
> 
>