I suggest that from now on all posts to FLUXlist should be in
the form of links.
maybe these links should have brief descriptions above them such as
the New York Times on the web for short attention spans [example below]:
Devastating Picture of Immigrants Dead in Arizona
Desert
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/25/national/25MIGR.html
But the new FLUXlist versions would look more like these examples [below]:
(all links courtesy of http://www.mail-archive.com)
john bennett writes a poem about agriculture,
flatware, and dentistry
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06065.html
alan bowman writes a fffo announcement
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05131.html
hello my name is _. I'm new to the list. I have
interesting things to say, which may be found at this link
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05799.html
jason pierce suggests that our descriptions above
our posted links are not brief enough
http://www.mail-archive.com/fluxlist%40scribble.com/msg06541.html
...etc. except that there would be one link per email. Unless, of course,
someone
wanted to respond to a number of other posts (or links), in which case,
they could
include several links (to their several responses) within the same
posted email.
this way, subscribers to the FLUXlist would be able to decide whether
or not they want
to read the emailed links to each others actual writings, based on
the one-line
abstracts above them.
although this is really no different than deciding not to read posts
based on what's
written in the subject box of each email, the one difference is that
subscribers to
the digest version would then also have the advantage of not
having to see any
text without actually 'opening' each post (by clicking on the link
in their case).
This advantage would have to be weighed against the disadvantages,
of course,
if only to strengthen the argument that we constrain our posts purely
to links
from now on.
Disadvantages:
1. this would be at least mildly annoying to regular subscribers to
FLUXlist, who would
have to deal with this slightly elaborate screening process twice;
once when they weed through the messages based on the subject box,
and again when
they do so based on the descriptions above the links to each others
writings.
2. even for those with access to their own web site, it would take more
effort to upload each
message to their site and then post an email to the FLUXlist with the
link to
each of those uploaded messages. it could certainly be done, but it
would take more
time and effort, that's all. And although anyone can obtain their own
web site from
geocities or elsewhere, this would also require more effort on the
part of every subscriber
to the FLUXlist who does not already have access to their own web site.
3. many posts cover more territory (a good metaphor, eh?) than a brief
description could
give justice to. also, multiple levels of meaning are often erased
or misrepresented by
the one-dimensionality of shorter descriptions. this is especially
true of poetry,
which may seem to be saying one thing, while at the same time offering
something quite
different or unexpected (the same is also true of much prose, btw).
Since the descriptions may not represent adequately or at all clearly,
the writings that
they are going to link us to, then this would require considerably
more effort on the part
of the reader to both ignore content that is of little interest to
them AND to follow the
various dialogues that do interest them (and that keep them
subscribing).
4. another difficulty might lie in deciding on the criteria for the
descriptions.
perhaps there should be rigid categories such as statements, responses,
questions, answers,
promotion of artwork, announcements, miscellaneous information, opinions,
etc.,
or any combination of these such as 'response+announcement+question',
and so on.
these could also be ranked by such general terms such as rational posts,
irrational ones,
funny, smart, rebellious, intimate, cute, juvenile, right, wrong, belligerent,
sexy, etc.,
and also in combination with the others, such as 'statement+answer+opinion&funny+brilliant'.
This could go on and on, though, and should probably be limited to
a
certain number of words. Otherwise, the descriptions themselves could
be mistaken for
poetry, and might annoy some people who apparently already feel overloaded
with
anything but prose.
�
So far it may seem that my suggestion (to limit all FLUXlist
participation, from this moment
forward, to email posts containing only brief descriptions and
links) would require significant
effort for a system that is inefficient at best compared to the way
the FLUXlist has operated
since long before my arrival.
Furthermore, some may argue that subscribers to the digest version are
not a
disadvantaged group at all, but rather, that those among them who are
annoyed with the
sheer volume of any of the posted writings also have the option to
receive FLUXlist posts
in the form of separate emails like other subscribers...
BUT I say that this interferes with their freedom of choice!
why should digest subscribers have to scroll past material that bores
or annoys them?
and why should they have to receive separate emails as their only alternative?
No. I suggest that the answer lies in completely restructuring the
existing FLUXlist.
After all, if one member of the list has to post their messages in the
form of links,
then everyone should.
Who's with me? anyone...?
in all sincerity,
Scott Rigby
jason pierce wrote:
A) should we have a vote on these issues?yea for vote
nay for no vote1) i suggest we have a vote on the "whether Bennett
should post his poetry with a link or not" issue.
actually lets not just single out bennett what about
links for all aesthetic (mostly poetry) presentation on fluxlist?yea for links
nay for bombardment2.) maybe another vote as well on "Bennett
should quit posting so much poetry".yea for less Bennett poetry
nay for continued bombardment3) whether "mock poetry"* should be banned from the list
* poetry mocking other peoples poetry, or any other criticism
of others fluxlisters work.yea for mock poetry
nay for mock free fluxlistvoting deadline 1 or 2 weeks from today sat. 5/26/01
a majority of 3 nays and i will take my hemlock
and be on my merry way (full compliance). as i wouldn't want to
participate in the "3 nay fluxlist" anyway.3* watchout for this one, "mock poetry" is a legitamate, creative
form of criticism whether you use the word "ass" or not and there
would have to be an established criteria for "mocking".jason
