if i'm only seeking attention then why attack me?
you are only encouraging me right? or are you
and deborah just trying to seek attention for yourselves?
jason
At 10:44 PM -0700 5/27/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote:
>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
