[syndicate] New morning / Un matin

[clemos]

On 2/17/06, A. G-C <guibertc at criticalsecret.com> wrote:
> There are lists to flame and list without flames.

yet, on both, one is _free_ to flame...

> If I have understand as well as possible what you say : a list which is not
> exactly the one you wish it cannot exist. It is a model of large vision of
> the difference as life on the earth.

I'm just defending freedom of speech, and the fact that "flaming" is
definitely part of freedom of speech. (at least _your_ definition of
"flaming" which seems to be : "disagreeing strongly with someone")
then ( unmoderate && flameless ) cannot coexist in a truly democratic
context, unless there is some kind of "censorship", or at least
"method for shutting one's mouth" behind.
I agree there can be rules, but they must be pronouced, known, and
agreed, so that one can choose to accept the rules or leave.
which has never been the case on your lists.

> No problem it is everytime the strange opposite vision of the democracy
> which is supposed implicit.

exactly.
the problem is : you and me can talk about that here, but not on your lists.
don't you think it's actually a problem ?

> Anyway the pass and the link to unsubscribe are both in the message of
> bienvenue.

sarkospams do have those things too.

> By your way the newspaper article that ctgr and clemos (as he did know
> nothing of me at this moment) played against me one year ago to have their
> little funny scoop in Libération (nothing is bad to be notorious;-), which
> was a defamatory public Press article against my works, was become your
> object of reality : you needed to get me appearing under this face that was
> your face of me not mine. And you are successful between you.

stop playing the victim, and you'll see you wont be a victim anymore.
ctgr and the journalists are the only responsibles of this article, so
please leave me alone with this.
by the way, this article is _not_ defamatory at all in my opinion.

> And what of my former friend searching money from the administration to you
> at Montpellier as he did not see me since twenty years but hearing soon of
> me from this special part as yours?

I didn't talk to him about you _at all_. we have loads of more
interresting subjects to deal with.
by the way, I have to ask you to keep this friend of mine out of this business.
as you know him, you should understand he has other things to deal
with for the moment than this particulary insignifiant conversation
you and I are having.
and please stop bugging me by invoquing the persons we both know. it
doesn't make any sense in the discussion and moreover isn't very
respectful to them, nor to both you and me when it's about an actual
_friend_ we have in common.
please don't do that, it's really sad.

++++++
clemos

> It is not so beautiful as way of life this one you have choosen you know?
>
> I should have be silent and have without delay a lawsuit: that was not my
> cup of tea. Beware of your ill will; too many mournings strew our lives...
> More negative vibrations cannot give open vision.
>
> All is very obvious right now. I am happy to know of it. Every thing I know
> get me more
>
>
>
>
> On 17/02/06 15:42, "clemos" <cl3mos at gmail.com> probably wrote:
>
> > a flameless but yet unmoderate list is a dead list
> > an unmoderate list where you are insulted and unsubscribed by the mods
> > just because you don't agree with them or insult them _back_ is a
> > totalitarian list. (typical 21st century
> > you-must-agree-and-shut-up-because-after-all-I-m-nice-with-you-happy-opened-po
> > sitivist-tolerant-and-you-are-not
> > totalitarism)
> > a list where you are subscribed without asking for that is a spam list.
> > a list with no humour is ... well, just a crappy list.
> > +++++
> > clemos
> >
> > On 2/16/06, Cyrill Duneau <cduneau at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> that's nice from you. on my part, go on with criticalsecret, which is fine
> >> for me.
> >> but i keep thinking you are not the good person to create an unmoderated
> >> list.
> >>
> >> "A. G-C" <guibertc at criticalsecret.com> wrote:
> >>  work your real art (which from my part I have not judged on) instead of
> >> looking at me.
> >>
> >>  Go on to create
> >>
> >>
> >>  ________________________________
> >>  Yahoo! Mail
> >>  Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> >> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> >> information and archive: http://syndicate.anart.no
> >> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> >> Shake the KKnut: http://syndicate.anart.no/KKnut/
> >> no commercial use of the texts without permission
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> > Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> > information and archive: http://syndicate.anart.no
> > to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> > Shake the KKnut: http://syndicate.anart.no/KKnut/
> > no commercial use of the texts without permission
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> information and archive: http://syndicate.anart.no
> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> Shake the KKnut: http://syndicate.anart.no/KKnut/
> no commercial use of the texts without permission
>
>