if j.pierce is not seeking attention, why seven messages in the space of an hour? i think i am in favour of a more narrow scope for fluxlist just to limit the number of messages in my inbox. imagine if i only checked my email once a week, from an outside source. i'd have to sift thru hundreds of messages, most of which (including my own, i suppose) are nothing more than pissing matches. i have tried to offer assistance, when i was able, to questions pertaining to fluxus artists. i have used the board to post questions about topics that i was researching (a question about george brecht's cedilla store went unanswered last year, i recall). but recently i've given up reading the messages at all because they are so rarely on topic and therefore of little interest. the word 'narrow' has bad connotations, but one of the webs best features is that it can filter out the info we don't want. the list is not called 'art-list' or (worse) 'life-list'. it was created to give people interested in a certain topic an opportunity for information and discourse. i suspect that only the very loneliest of us would sign up for something called 'freeforalllist'. in terms of using this forum to distribute one's own art: yes, it's fantastic that artists have the means with which to create and share their work. this, however, does not make for better work (necessarily). it's like listening to karaoke sometimes. perhaps if contributors were to sit on their posts for a day, before sending. the next morning might reveal the previous days epic to be, well, a little lacking. some fights could be prevented this way also (as someone's mother undoubtedly told you "count to ten"). if this thinking is in any way oppressive, or in total contradiction to fluxlist, i can be removed without warning. there are a few things that i will miss, but these are becoming more and more rare - if only because i read less and less posts now. thanks, dave
