Forwarding some individual posting from Syndicate [not those illustrating
political relations, or any subversive channels, but more those that
describe internal turmoil(s) within the list itself]:
From: "self re:ply.cator" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [syndicate] Re: Yes, but is it art?
At 03:45 PM 3/10/2002 +0100, f wrote:
of course, everybody knows that I am an advocate of list disruption, the
difference is that I think that ultimately this should be beneficial to the
list and not to the disrupter alone.
i'm curious as 2 how u distinguish the difference? firstly, i'd lurve u 2
d.fine _beneficial_ in terms of how it affects list cohesion & function, &
how this individualisation of subscriber identification can operate along
this benefit-deficit scale? also how this affects the pulse communication
function that most list labor under.........?
the huge difference is the cross posting
cross posting is the bane of mailing lists
y, fred? u seem 2 b aligning yr perception with.in a niche that advocates
members of various mailing lists live under the i][a][ll.usion that the
net.work perpetuates this insularism, that every1 who is n.terested in
b.ing subbed 2 various mailing lists x.ist in a mono-data-directed vaccum
that can only cope with _1_ manifest x.posure to information.......that
those who r only n.terested in connecting 2 1 nodepoint, via _1_ list
forum, do not have the right 2 b x.posed 2 data b.cause of the
_n.con][ned][venience this wood cause 2 those more -connected_ via multiple
nodes........r u really n.terested in promoting x.clusion & data closure
b.cause of this top-down hierarchical slant in terms of network function?
i. am. stained. with. repetition.
::the chip.mark of the net.
.all .][t][h][r][ive .in .he][a][re.....
why are there different mailing lists ?
with (hopefully) different subscribers, different topics, different
functionalities, different roots and different histories ?
ah, the hub. d i f f e r e n c e [n.sert perpetual loop]
n.deed, y r there? this _difference_ is telling........instead of operating
via this divergent take, i c the net.work as a _whole_, operational in
terms of infosharing & dispersal........
this difference, this reliance on the in box as a box, not as a
f, surely u jest here, histories????
history doesn't x.ist, it is a fiction @ best........
cross posting can never be justified
f, _u think|perceive this_. this is not a statement of fact [or
because it nullifies the very nature of each mailing list, because it
specifically adresses none of them.
i c it as _ratifiying_ the nature of mailing lists.......n][et][ature as
d.fined by connexion, communicative points in an x.tendible net of flow &
flux......do u want 2 x.clude those not so ego-n.trenched in this
net.baggage? if _xXx_ is subbed to syndicate but not 2 _reader-list_, and
info is not cross-posted due to x.clusionary individualisation via blanket
withdrawal of crucial info due 2 justifications such as u yr espousing, do
u c that _xXx_ is then x.cluded from x.posure 2 info _from which_ they can
then choose 2 x.pose themselves 2?
[filters. r. yr|the. x.clusionists. friend.]
therefore it turns the attention on the cross poster only (having discarded
any and every notion of communality) and it becomes obvious that the cross
poster is only willing to momentarily confiscate the _numbers and that is
what I find terribly abusive.
do u c that yr perception here is crucial 2 the formation of yr point
above? do u c that u think that cross-posting hi-lights the ego-definition
of the poster in such a way that their characteristics are etched all over
i. offer. a different. view.
these numbers that u assume r being overwritten [due 2
non-responsivity|lurking b.haviour etc], this community that is b.ing [in
yr view] blanked out due 2 the nature of x.tended information x.posure is
d.fined by wot x.actly? wot makes up the community here, in this net.worked
area? is it repetition of dialogical conventions? participation via
manifest post activity? access 2 information? access 2 communication via
other enitiy participation? wot?
not that it bothers me that much beyond the fact that I find it either
willingly manipulative or lacking in reflexion about networking indeed
it bothers me greatly that u'd offer these opinions & not firstly c that
they r in fact _drenched with yr individualistic-ego driven spin_...as r my
opinions....wot matters here 4 me is that this _community_ of mailing lists
[in my case, network connectors] r being bandied around as cohesive
structures in which individuals autonomously activate data _without_ any
nuanced understanding of the mechanisms via which these communities
u need 2 x.plain the community function 2 me, within the confines of a
mailing list forum.
[pre.tend - or ack.no.ledge- i. am. an. idiot.]
~ a signature
well, peut etre, but it seems that _everything must be explained
absolutely. if u start a multilogue like this f, b prepared 2
x.plain|n.gage in multilogues. it is 4 the good of the _community_ after
. . .... .....
[trans. loose. (e)NT][ity]
.... . .??? .......
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]
> So far we've had little mention of the Syndicate list, which was
> chronicled in a post to Nettime in 2001 by founding members Inke Arns and
> Andreas Broeckmann:
> One of the things that I believe was so important to this list at the time
> (and perhaps even more so with some historical perspective) was the voice
> gave people of the former Yugoslavia during its civil war. It's common
> now to talk about how platforms like Twitter break through political
> censorship Iran and Egypt are good recent examples but on a list like
> the Syndicate, such freedom of speech could be both a benefit and a
> detractor, as Arns and Broeckmann note. I'd love to know if anyone involved
> with the list at this time would like to recall individual posts that
> illustrate this difficult period.
> And also more generally if anyone would venture an account of their
> relationship with the Syndicate what collaboration its led to, and what
> it was like to lose it especially in light of the comments we've already
> had about how much of loss the Rhizome Raw list was.
> Inke and Andreas, I've BCC'd you in case you have time to offer anything to
> this discussion on Media Art Curating I can forward your responses if you
> are not current subscribers/are pushed for time. You'll find more on this
> month's discussions here:
> All the best,
| facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>