the MOD/CCA discussion was the first time that i thought that the ambit-list had matured and got something to say other than telling each other about our openings/exhibitons/on-line performances etc (which can be important too) or discuss out of the blue monthly topics, people dicussed with passion. even chris+ bev's (mum+dad: "hey kids don't get personal ") interventions didn't stop it.
so i look forward to more. it might even get me started - being one of the quiet ambit backbenchers.
holger
>From: mark lawton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject:
the lost point
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:02:54 +0100
>
>hi chris
>i don't really want to get into a you said-he said-we said loop but
>i'm afraid i must respond once more
>
>>>first of all could you show me when any of the discussions
>>>inspired more than a handful of respondents/participants
>>
>>Number of postings to during October (to date) = 107
>>Number of postings to during September = 30
>
>this misses the point i was responding to - i meant more than the
>'tiny minority' you wrote of, not the actual number of postings
>although surely the large number of postings hints at healthiness
>not at problematic
>
>>>are you really saying that those who have clearly defined opinions
>>>should temper the expression of them so as not to upset the
>>>fragile or un(in)formed opinions of others ?
>>
>>No, I think that's what you're saying. Whose opinions do you think
>>are ill-or un(in)formed? Just because an opinion is strongly held
>>does not necessarily imply that it is well-informed or
>>representative.
>>
>eh?! - never mentioned ill-informed and nor have i ever claim to be
>representative; these are my thoughts on the matter which it appears
>are shared by some other people
>
>and, before gair brought this matter to the attention of the group
>we were all uninformed were we not
>
>>>seems to me that what you're saying has the whiff of censorship
>>>about it, and the most damaging form of all, that of
>>>self-censorship
>>>
>>>totally outrageous
>>
>>It seems to me this is paranoia on your part. This list is no more
>>censored than a meeting in a pub. Unfortunately when opinions in a
>>meeting become polarised and discussion heated, it discourages
>>others from talking.
>
>again i never said that you practised such but i took your original
>point to mean that strong opinions were somehow intimidating others
>not to express themselves and so i and others should tone it down a
>bit - which ultimately would amount to self-censorship would it not
>?
>
>>
>>I'm sure you believe you are right in your opinions. I happen to
>>disagree with some of your opinions and the way you are expressing
>>them. For you to complain of censorship is ridiculous.
>
>that you disagree with my views is fine, though you have yet to
>express this openly, but the way i am expressing my views is by
>writing to a discussion list/group in the hope of inspiring dialogue
>- what other way do you suggest i should do it ?
>
>as i wrote to torsten previously... ' i really hope more have more
>to say - yea or nae' - by which i meant via dialogue and debate, a
>lamentably neglected art
>
>peace
>
>mark
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland
>post: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>archive: http://www.mediascot.org/ambit
>info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>and write "info ambit" in the message body
>-------------------------------------------------
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN.
Click Here
-------------------------------------------------
a m b i t : networking media arts in scotland
post: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
archive: http://www.mediascot.org/ambit
info: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and write "info ambit" in the message body
-------------------------------------------------
