Return-Path: Received: from mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.1.48] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11) for paragram@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:14:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by Mail.ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE (Smail3.2.0.98) from n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.99) with smtp id ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 05:26:28 +0100 (MET) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-64825-19202-1036902386-cantsin=zedat.fu-berlin.de@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Nov 2002 04:26:26 -0000 X-Sender: sondheim@panix.com X-Apparently-To: webartery@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Nov 2002 04:26:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 83567 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2002 04:26:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Nov 2002 04:26:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.panix.com) (166.84.1.74) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2002 04:26:25 -0000 Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.1.3]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE509859E for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by panix3.panix.com (8.11.6/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) with ESMTP id gAA4QPH26945 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:26:25 -0500 (EST) To: webartery@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: Alan Sondheim MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list webartery@yahoogroups.com; contact webartery-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list webartery@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:26:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [webartery] Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs Reply-To: webartery@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: Rde"!(bH!!B\8!!Xe_"! Content-Length: 1689 It may be none of my business here, but what is "pseudo artspeak" and "pseudo mysticism"? If you're so interested in "inclusion," why can't you accept the way others speak and write? And why not take mez' word for it? What's at stake in it for you? Alan On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote: > so explain (without resorting to pseudo artspeak and pseudo > mysticism) what's reductive about actually judging the work and not > the reputation of the maker? what's reductive about inclusion as > exposed to exclusion? > am i simply to take your word for it? or apply my knowledge of code > and realize how you do what you do? > > --- In webartery@y..., "dis.[UR]Locate" wrote: > > At 04:17 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, you wrote: > > >but that's CLOSED...if your little circle is the network (which is > > >one helluva ego trip, my friend), what separates your little circle > > >from what you claim to hate in the politics of this country? > > > > > >bliss > > >l > > > > red[on]uction[simpl]istic. > > > > > > . . .... ..... > > pro][tean][.lapsing.txt