| nettime's_autoimmune_system on Fri, 28 Jan 2000 05:49:07 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> nettime, dear nettime... |
Re: RECLAIM NETTIME (was Re: <nettime> Dear Nettime)
Dmytri Kleiner <[email protected]>
scotartt <[email protected]>
Dmytri Kleiner <[email protected]>
nettime fascistz
[email protected]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:08:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Dmytri Kleiner <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RECLAIM NETTIME (was Re: <nettime> Dear Nettime)
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, scotartt wrote:
> > Name.Space will soon issue a press release regarding
> > the decision of the court in Name.Space v. NSI/NSF.
>
> Why? We already know you lost.
This kind of glib, nasty statement is an obvious attempt to insult by
insinuating that the defendant in this court case must have nothing more
to say since the Judge'ss division is known.
Would you feel that way if eToy lost, that they therefore have nothing
more to say? DVD? Microradio?
Radio Free Berkeley is also a business, did that make them any less
important in the Microradio issue? Is DNS less important than radio?
This is utter nonsense, and along with many other statements in your trite
'retort' shows that Mr. Guerin probably has a point.
I suspect the only reason that you even posted PG's message to nettime was
to give yourself the opportunity to send your own snotty remarks.
Is this what nettime calls 'moderation'?
Yuck.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: scotartt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RECLAIM NETTIME (was Re: <nettime> Dear Nettime)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 100 12:26:06 +1100 (EST)
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, scotartt wrote:
>
> > > Name.Space will soon issue a press release regarding
> > > the decision of the court in Name.Space v. NSI/NSF.
> >
> > Why? We already know you lost.
>
> This kind of glib, nasty statement is an obvious attempt to insult by
> insinuating that the defendant in this court case must have nothing more
> to say since the Judge'ss division is known.
Well, yes, it IS rhetoric. After all the issues I and PG raise, and this
is the issue that so bothers you -- the rhetorical style of but ONE of the
parties? So, slandering nettime moderation team is perfectly OK, and any
sort of **personal** response by nettime subscribers is not?
Also, 'Who Benefits?' is a long held principle of inquiry into matters
like these. Paul Garrin runs a business, which benefits directly from the
reforms he proposes that others help him win, especially since his legal
argument has failed thus far. Nettime is not in any business, and none of
its moderators run a registry, to my knowledge.
I for one am completely sick of business interests setting the agenda for
the internet. Its high time this changes.
> Would you feel that way if eToy lost, that they therefore have nothing
> more to say? DVD? Microradio?
Etoy did not start the suit. Etoy are not a business. I don't enough about
the intricacies of the microradio case to comment.
> This is utter nonsense, and along with many other statements in your trite
> 'retort' shows that Mr. Guerin probably has a point.
Which are? Please show extant examples. your argument is really quite
trite. Its not even an argument.
> I suspect the only reason that you even posted PG's message to nettime was
> to give yourself the opportunity to send your own snotty remarks.
>
> Is this what nettime calls 'moderation'?
Well, I didn't approve either message, so in the absence of the facts, you
are completely incorrect in your suspicions.
Would you sooner: a) we don't approve any messages, so these issues are
never debated and you don't even know they exist. or b) we approve these
messages but don't allow ourselves to put our personal viewpoints across,
thereby giving the field to others who might be engaging in a _hostile_
form of action against the list, its moderators, its members, and against
the general Internet public, all for the sake of an enterprise? That is
the choice here. I'm not allowed to have an opinion, is that it?
scot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:55:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dmytri Kleiner <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RECLAIM NETTIME (was Re: <nettime> Dear Nettime)
On Fri, 28 Jan 100, scotartt wrote:
> > This kind of glib, nasty statement is an obvious attempt to insult by
> > insinuating that the defendant in this court case must have nothing more
> > to say since the Judge'ss division is known.
>
> Well, yes, it IS rhetoric.
Obviously.
> After all the issues I and PG raise,
What issues? PG says that due to restrictive moderation, interested
parties can read his threads elsewhere, simple enough? I don't really
think he said anything else in his message.
And the point *YOU* make? Please. What point? Blah blah blah Name.Space is
a business, blah blah it's not easy being a nettime moderator, blah blah.
Please, is there a specific point you actually want some response to?
> and this is the issue that so bothers you -- the rhetorical style of
> but ONE of the parties?
> So, slandering nettime moderation team is perfectly OK, and any
> sort of **personal** response by nettime subscribers is not?
Slander? Oh man, you're killing me, go whine at somebody else!
If you can't take a little heat, maybe you should rethink being a
moderator, putting yourself in a position of playing censor (which is what
a moderator does) is bound to get ya heckled. Don't cry about it.
In fact heckling moderators is a very important and justified new media
pastime. Somebody's gotta keep ya honest.
> Also, 'Who Benefits?' is a long held principle of inquiry into matters
Yes. So? As I said, Free Radio Berkeley benefits from the microradio
rulings, does that mean they're bad?
> like these. Paul Garrin runs a business, which benefits directly from the
> reforms he proposes that others help him win, especially since his legal
> argument has failed thus far. Nettime is not in any business, and none of
> its moderators run a registry, to my knowledge.
He's waging a war against government insiders and spooks, it aint easy.
Being a business isn't inherently bad, this is a non-argument.
> I for one am completely sick of business interests setting the agenda for
> the Internet. Its high time this changes.
What a gross over simplification. There are many business that I would
love to have set the agenda for the internet, and many individuals whose
mere involvement I loathe. It all depends on their goals.
Again, your point is a non point.
> > Would you feel that way if eToy lost, that they therefore have nothing
> > more to say? DVD? Microradio?
>
> Etoy did not start the suit. Etoy are not a business. I don't enough about
> the intricacies of the microradio case to comment.
SO? and SO? and GO EDUCATE YOURSELF THEN!
In the day of the word wide web, ignorance is never an excuse.
> Which are? Please show extant examples. your argument is really quite
> trite. Its not even an argument.
My argument is that you're being ridiculous. Please continue, you're
making my point for me.
> > I suspect the only reason that you even posted PG's message to nettime was
> > to give yourself the opportunity to send your own snotty remarks.
> >
> > Is this what nettime calls 'moderation'?
>
> Well, I didn't approve either message, so in the absence of the facts, you
> are completely incorrect in your suspicions.
Fine, suspicion withdrawn then, but it sure did look that way...
> Would you sooner: a) we don't approve any messages, so these issues are
> never debated and you don't even know they exist. or b) we approve these
> messages but don't allow ourselves to put our personal viewpoints across,
How about c) stop yer whining and take some gentle criticism like a grown
up.
Flame anyone and everyone, I encourage you completely -- as long as
everyone is *equal* -- flame someone acting as a moderator, which implies
censorious powers, and you come across like an *asshole*.
As a moderator, people will frequently be frustrated with your decisions
and call you a censor, get used to it. Taunting them will not help.
Get it?
> thereby giving the field to others who might be engaging in a _hostile_
> form of action against the list, its moderators, its members, and against
> the general Internet public, all for the sake of an enterprise? That is
> the choice here.
Baloney. You had to be snotty to PG to save the internet? Yeah right.
> I'm not allowed to have an opinion, is that it?
Oh god. not this silly loop...
I'm not allowed to have an opinion on your opinion, is that it?
You're turn. Careful this could go on forever....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:51:49 +0100
Subject: nettime fascistz
bravo Paul Garrin <[email protected]>
Ted Byfield, Geert Lovink, Felix Stalder, Katherine Jacobs, Pit
Schultz, and others fasc!ztz--
-
Ted Byfield, Geert Lovink, Felix Stalder, Katherine Jacobs, Pit
Schultz, and others <=> fasc!ztz
have censored all =cw4t7abs transmissions for 2 years. inkluding
http://www.m9ndfukc.org/konkurs/00.html
may i = have addtl futurologikal kongress++
nettime = korporat fasc!zm++
Ted Byfield = Geert Lovink = Pit Schultz
lo.tekk male fascist filth \ refusz
[full text of paul garrin's message deleted; it's available at
<http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/200001/msg00152.html>]
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]