Re: FLUXLIST: Trial by e-jury
No. (This is an old fallacious argument in favor of censure.) Most lists are _not 'moderated.' These lists achieve their own *collectively inherent and interesting vitality/direction. I would second this. But there are second and third wave lists, that do moderate, more or less satisfying. The best lists I know are unmoderated. Sometimes, the "listowner" gives comments, but nor very often. And IMHO the best lists are those, which can stand "offtopic" themes, like mp3 here. Th world is changing, its the question if the internet is becoming just anothe way of distributing TV, or if it is a bigger crowd, of people who have common interests and share things, as they had done before. Well, its both. Brad knows the internet "since 1994" or something, see his famous sig ;-) H.
Re: FLUXLIST: The inconstancy of constants
http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/ A very interesting read . . . physicist Rupert Sheldrake (the guy who gave us "morphic resonance"--one of my fave theories) asks the question: Do physical constants fluctuate? Like maybe the speed of light IS NOT the constant we thought it was. He says: "The implications of fluctuating fundamental constants would be enormous. The course of nature could no longer be imagined as blandly uniform; we would recognize that there are fluctuations at the very heart of physical reality." How Fluxus of nature! Barg
Re: FLUXLIST: The inconstancy of constants
I did not know that anyone imagined the course of nature to be blandly uniform. On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/ A very interesting read . . . physicist Rupert Sheldrake (the guy who gave us "morphic resonance"--one of my fave theories) asks the question: Do physical constants fluctuate? Like maybe the speed of light IS NOT the constant we thought it was. He says: "The implications of fluctuating fundamental constants would be enormous. The course of nature could no longer be imagined as blandly uniform; we would recognize that there are fluctuations at the very heart of physical reality." How Fluxus of nature! Barg
Re: FLUXLIST: Favorite words found on a Saturday morning . . .
cosmic fecundity lingering Platonism mutant constants the psychology of metrologists -- regarding inaccurate measurements due to: intellectual phase locking the permittivity of free space
FLUXLIST: Dead horse beaten
C'mon, guys. There is a list here, and by definition, the owners and subscribers of this list constitute a community of some kind. The exact nature of that community is arguably vague, but it's sophistry to suggest that the listowners ought to start a private mailing-list. The listowners started THIS list and the folks who claim they don't like the list nevertheless got here when came along and subscribed. The is open to those who wish to take part. No one has been required to join this list. No one is required to remain a subscriber. To suggest that the listowners take Fluxlist somewhere else is ridiculous: there is only one Internet. The list is public in the sense that anyone is free to join or leave. The list is ALREADY private in that anyone who wishes to join does so understanding how it works and agrees by subscribing to accept the standards set forth in the welcome statement. Whether or not this list is a travesty of some kind is a matter of opinion. As Davidson noted, there is no real basis for an etrial -- and there is no question of it. Owen intended to make a point supporting Sol. Just as there is no need for an etrial, there are no questions of procedure. Sol invoked an accepted procedure. It was established when the list was refounded. Here's a suggestion for those who think this list is a travesty: Go start a list of your own. I promise not to bother you. -- Ken Friedman --
FLUXLIST: e-trial (Dead horse beaten)
rather than spout off as i am wont to do i figured i'd wait it out until ken posted with a reasonable, well-thought out request that this subject be laid to rest. thanks ken, dave
FLUXLIST: wild horses couldn't drag me away
First-- In joining any list, one is made aware of the rules and guidelines of the list. One enters into a contract with these in joining. Of course, with time and experience, one may find oneself disagreeing with the tenor and tenets of the list. This often happens. An interesting question would then be, how to work for a positive, constructive change, if one cares enough about the issues and events of the list--how to effect this--without resorting to "flaming" or to simply leaving and beginning a new list, which may incorporate those changes one sees fit and inviting others to join this. The bottom line is that one is aware from the outset of the guidelines, rules--and has entered into a contract of one's own volition. (Unless of course coerced by say, having to join it for a class or peer pressure etc) That said, the issue of the censored person--any question of censorship is disturbing. Two other lists I am on have had to deal with this--one decisively, according to its tenets, the other indecisevely, and the problem drags on. In that way, the flamer (as in "flaming asshole", often--: "he's a real flamer"--meaning this)--the flamer has accomplished her/his goal and made buffoons of the others. Eventually, this too leads to censorship, but in more hypocritical fashion. There is a Zen parable relating to this idea of "beating a dead horse": A master and his pupil are on a journey through mountainous and deeply forested country to an isolated temple. On the way, they encounter a a dangerous, rushing stream. A beautiful young woman stands at the edge of one side, with a heavy sack. She is afraid to cross, though she must. The master puts her atop his shoulders and carries her across. They part ways, she taking another path. Many miles and hours later, the pupil says to the master--"why did you pick up that woman? Isn't it against our vows?" The master replies: "I put the woman down at the edge of the stream. You have been carrying her ever since". As a child I often noticed the strange fact that very intelligent people often yearned to demonstrate their intelligence--whether it was of their own conception and self-proclamation or bolstered by "proofs" in the way of tests, grades, degrees and so on-- they yearned to prove this by argumentation. Rapidly, the principles and questions of the arguments were abandoned, and it became a clash of personalities. Victory would somehow prove not only intelligence but a certain kind of might. "Might makes right"--"the squeaky wheel gets the grease"-- And so one received one's first lessons in sophistry and rhetoric. Thinking of this question of "putting principles before personalities", came across an interesting quote from Kierkegaard, cited by the Surrealist painter Andre Masson in an essay called "Painting is a Wager" (written in 1941 and included in THEORIES OF MODERN ART Edited by Herschel Chipp. Berkeley: U Cal Press, 1968; 436-40. The Kierkegaard quote is appended as a note by Masson, p. 440). I think it applies well to the kind of arguments and such that employ mere power plays connected with personalities rather than an essay in the action of a generative questioning and understanding of actions, events, questions, examples--and lead to more thought and work rather than the excruciating noise of ever louder amplifiers, leading to demogogery and the like. (Demi-god-ery for example.) Kierkegaard: We must not take the word contradiction in the mistaken sense in which Hegel used it and which he made others and contradiction itself believe that it had a creative power. Though personally I often enjoy the "witz" as Bertrand calls them (jokes) and participate in them, I also, like Bertrand, joined the list hoping to find a continual learning and opening up of questions which are involved with the history and events and ideas and objects of Fluxus, and their relations with other art/performance questions. Also, one hopes to contribute to this-- The agreement or disagreement is not so important as what one may find--and be able to make use of! Which raises the old question of the artist/maker as thief-- or--speaking of wagers as Masson and someone on the list did--that famous wagerer Pascal's proposition that "it is not the elements that are new, but the order of their arrangement". Which bears on the question raised on the list of the constancy or not such of nature--the question entropy/negentropy. (Two good books on this are: ART AND ENTROPY by Rudolf Arnheim (U Cal P I forget the year, also the title I may have reversed--it may be "Entropy and
FLUXLIST: Fwd: Re: Schwitters/Dada Club card member (fwd)
Bertrand--vous avez bien raison--your "remembers are good": have just been rereading for the manyth time DADA ART AND ANTI-ART by Hans Richter and POEMS PERFORMANCES PIECES PROSES PLAYS POETICS by Kurt Schwitters for an essay i am working on. ( usually anyway reading both as part of daily life and work) the incident Bertrand speaks of did indeed take place, in 1918. it is briefly dexcribed on pp. 137-8 of Richter's book in PP, Schwitters makes a distincton between "kernel" Dada--which is in the Tzara/abstract line and "will live as long as art itself"--and "husk Dada"-- which he quotes (I believe from Huelsenbeck) as "forsee(ing) its own demise and laugh(ing) about it" (Philadelphia: Temple U Pres, 1993; 216-7) Schwitters' distinction is made in an a piece called "Merz", written in 1920. Schwitters' appelation "husk Dada" plays on the German "hulse", meaning "husk"--and refers to Huelsenbeck's "inconsequential and dilettantish views on art". Thank you Bertrand for bringing this up. In Richter's version it is Raoul Hausmann" recounting of the events in his "Courier Dada" that is used--Hausmann stating that he met Schwitters--then unknown to him--in the Cafe des Westens and Schwitters after much conversation--asked to join the Club. Hausmann said that he had to bring it before a general meeting. There, Hausmann discovered that Huelsenbeck and a few others already knew of Schwitters and that Huelsenbeck had taken an aversion to him and said that not every Tom, Dick and Harry could be admitted to the club. "In short, he did not like Schwitters"(138). The allusion to Schwitters' "bourgeois face" according to Richter occurs in a book written by Huelsenbeck forty years after the event, even after the two had been reconciled before Schwitters' death. I think that Schwitters may have appreciated this, as it illustrates the differences between "husk" and "kernel" Dada. Forty years later, husk Huelsenbeck is still hanging on to an event, an impression--a dislike as an act of "reason". Meanwhile, Schwitters, a great many of whose works were destroyed by war and peacetime disasters--as well as banned--worked on--the once wanted Club Card not needed for any such sanction regarding the activity of Merz--or art. (It should be noted though that Huelsenbeck's dislike of a bourgeois face is in keeping with the powerful anti-bourgeois stance of Berlin Dada and its Bolshevik tendencies; it is not founded on a mere whim alone). As Schwitters notes: "Eternal last longer". --dave baptiste chirot On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Bertrand et Claudia CLAVEZ wrote: I don't think the Dadaists felt themselves privledged, i.e. "card-carrying members of the Dada Club," to be able to do such things You might be right, even though there use to be a real club Dada, in Berlin I think, as far as someone like Kurt Schwitters was clearly refused to enter in in 1919 -because of Huelsenbeck, if my remembers are good, who found him to much "petit-bourgeois" and in despite of the good will of Tristan Tzara. Bertrand Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: FLUXLIST: Trial by e-jury
Free Fluxlist Now! /:b It is free. It's a collective, which is self-governing. People are free to say what they like, but no one is free to silence others with insult and obscenity, or impose such noise on ongoing discussion that the discussion becomes impossible. Emotion is fine. What Sol did was not to censor emotion by someone who is involved with the list. The post under discussion was from a random outsider who simply wanted to insult someone with a little obscenity. I don't lock my doors (truly) but if someone came in my house and shit on the floor, I wouldn't let them in again. It's a pretty close analogy. And really, _no one_ is interested in your purely private feud with Saul. That stuff can happen between the two of you. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand. AK
Re: FLUXLIST: Trial by e-jury
Kathy! Wonderful Commonplace Book of thoughts on liberty; thank you for your research and your thoughtfulness. Having children, I am, by default, initially an autocrat and must gradually cede to them their liberty. Being by instinct someone who takes a fair amount of license for herself--a real fan of freedom, even the transgressive kind--it can be hard for me to think about the relationship of freedom and justice. These writings are helpful in thinking about the concept. Your post takes us far beyond the asterisk zone and into other areas. What about people's current thoughts on transgressive art practices? There were some posts on the Aktionists earlier, and Flanagan. How do ideas of free communication, liberty, responsibility, play out in an examination of art practices meant to be transgressive? Is the importance of the ends what decides the ethicality of a practice? Or is transgressiveness the end in itself, justified by the degree of stultification it fractures? In what context were the Aktionists doing their animal works? Did the work result in greater freedom in the society in which they took place, or was rigidifying reaction the only consequence? What is people's experience with this? Have you been able in your own practices to instantiate greater freedom for others? Bernard and Claudia? History continues as we speak . . . AK
FLUXLIST: horses, dead and alive
Ken and others: I know it tries peoples' patience when topics get ground up fine, but eventually boredom instantiates creativity, or at least research, and genuinely interesting things can happen as a result (see Forer, Kathy, 2000). On a list in which Cage's works are often under discussion, the value of having one's patience tried should be understood. Without boredom, without too-muchness, without excess and starvation, nothing interesting can happen. This is, I know, exceedingly un-Swedish, Ken, but it's not entirely un-Norwegian--think of that asshole Hamsun, one of my favorite writers! Yours in boredom and interest, sickness and health, AK
Re: FLUXLIST: wild horses couldn't drag me away
This is brilliant. Consider this a second to any motion it may call for. David Baptiste Chirot wrote: First-- In joining any list, one is made aware of the rules and guidelines of the list. One enters into a contract with these in joining. Of course, with time and experience, one may find oneself disagreeing with the tenor and tenets of the list. This often happens. An interesting question would then be, how to work for a positive, constructive change, if one cares enough about the issues and events of the list--how to effect this--without resorting to "flaming" or to simply leaving and beginning a new list, which may incorporate those changes one sees fit and inviting others to join this. The bottom line is that one is aware from the outset of the guidelines, rules--and has entered into a contract of one's own volition. (Unless of course coerced by say, having to join it for a class or peer pressure etc) That said, the issue of the censored person--any question of censorship is disturbing. Two other lists I am on have had to deal with this--one decisively, according to its tenets, the other indecisevely, and the problem drags on. In that way, the flamer (as in "flaming asshole", often--: "he's a real flamer"--meaning this)--the flamer has accomplished her/his goal and made buffoons of the others. Eventually, this too leads to censorship, but in more hypocritical fashion. There is a Zen parable relating to this idea of "beating a dead horse": A master and his pupil are on a journey through mountainous and deeply forested country to an isolated temple. On the way, they encounter a a dangerous, rushing stream. A beautiful young woman stands at the edge of one side, with a heavy sack. She is afraid to cross, though she must. The master puts her atop his shoulders and carries her across. They part ways, she taking another path. Many miles and hours later, the pupil says to the master--"why did you pick up that woman? Isn't it against our vows?" The master replies: "I put the woman down at the edge of the stream. You have been carrying her ever since". As a child I often noticed the strange fact that very intelligent people often yearned to demonstrate their intelligence--whether it was of their own conception and self-proclamation or bolstered by "proofs" in the way of tests, grades, degrees and so on-- they yearned to prove this by argumentation. Rapidly, the principles and questions of the arguments were abandoned, and it became a clash of personalities. Victory would somehow prove not only intelligence but a certain kind of might. "Might makes right"--"the squeaky wheel gets the grease"-- And so one received one's first lessons in sophistry and rhetoric. Thinking of this question of "putting principles before personalities", came across an interesting quote from Kierkegaard, cited by the Surrealist painter Andre Masson in an essay called "Painting is a Wager" (written in 1941 and included in THEORIES OF MODERN ART Edited by Herschel Chipp. Berkeley: U Cal Press, 1968; 436-40. The Kierkegaard quote is appended as a note by Masson, p. 440). I think it applies well to the kind of arguments and such that employ mere power plays connected with personalities rather than an essay in the action of a generative questioning and understanding of actions, events, questions, examples--and lead to more thought and work rather than the excruciating noise of ever louder amplifiers, leading to demogogery and the like. (Demi-god-ery for example.) Kierkegaard: We must not take the word contradiction in the mistaken sense in which Hegel used it and which he made others and contradiction itself believe that it had a creative power. Though personally I often enjoy the "witz" as Bertrand calls them (jokes) and participate in them, I also, like Bertrand, joined the list hoping to find a continual learning and opening up of questions which are involved with the history and events and ideas and objects of Fluxus, and their relations with other art/performance questions. Also, one hopes to contribute to this-- The agreement or disagreement is not so important as what one may find--and be able to make use of! Which raises the old question of the artist/maker as thief-- or--speaking of wagers as Masson and someone on the list did--that famous wagerer Pascal's proposition that "it is not the elements that are new, but the order of their arrangement". Which bears on the question raised on the list of the constancy or not such of nature--the question entropy/negentropy. (Two good books on this are: ART AND ENTROPY by Rudolf Arnheim (U
Re: FLUXLIST: Trial by e-jury
If you don't like america, Brad, why don't you go to China, see how you like it there! Bertrand et Claudia CLAVEZ wrote: FREE BRAD BRACE NOW!! LET HIM GO OUT OF THIS CENSURED PLACE NOW!! as he seems to ask for... bertrand
FLUXLIST: Fwd: Re: Schwitters/Dada Club card member
Bertrand--vous avez bien raison--your "remembers are good": have just been rereading for the manyth time DADA ART AND ANTI-ART by Hans Richter and POEMS PERFORMANCES PIECES PROSES PLAYS POETICS by Kurt Schwitters for an essay i am working on. ( usually anyway reading both as part of daily life and work) the incident Bertrand speaks of did indeed take place, in 1918. it is briefly dexcribed on pp. 137-8 of Richter's book in PP, Schwitters makes a distincton between "kernel" Dada--which is in the Tzara/abstract line and "will live as long as art itself"--and "husk Dada"-- which he quotes (I believe from Huelsenbeck) as "forsee(ing) its own demise and laugh(ing) about it" (Philadelphia: Temple U Pres, 1993; 216-7) Schwitters' distinction is made in an a piece called "Merz", written in 1920. Schwitters' appelation "husk Dada" plays on the German "hulse", meaning "husk"--and refers to Huelsenbeck's "inconsequential and dilettantish views on art". Thank you Bertrand for bringing this up. In Richter's version it is Raoul Hausmann" recounting of the events in his "Courier Dada" that is used--Hausmann stating that he met Schwitters--then unknown to him--in the Cafe des Westens and Schwitters after much conversation--asked to join the Club. Hausmann said that he had to bring it before a general meeting. There, Hausmann discovered that Huelsenbeck and a few others already knew of Schwitters and that Huelsenbeck had taken an aversion to him and said that not every Tom, Dick and Harry could be admitted to the club. "In short, he did not like Schwitters"(138). The allusion to Schwitters' "bourgeois face" according to Richter occurs in a book written by Huelsenbeck forty years after the event, even after the two had been reconciled before Schwitters' death. I think that Schwitters may have appreciated this, as it illustrates the differences between "husk" and "kernel" Dada. Forty years later, husk Huelsenbeck is still hanging on to an event, an impression--a dislike as an act of "reason". Meanwhile, Schwitters, a great many of whose works were destroyed by war and peacetime disasters--as well as banned--worked on--the once wanted Club Card not needed for any such sanction regarding the activity of Merz--or art. (It should be noted though that Huelsenbeck's dislike of a bourgeois face is in keeping with the powerful anti-bourgeois stance of Berlin Dada and its Bolshevik tendencies; it is not founded on a mere whim alone). As Schwitters notes: "Eternal last longer". --dave baptiste chirot On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Bertrand et Claudia CLAVEZ wrote: I don't think the Dadaists felt themselves privledged, i.e. "card-carrying members of the Dada Club," to be able to do such things You might be right, even though there use to be a real club Dada, in Berlin I think, as far as someone like Kurt Schwitters was clearly refused to enter in in 1919 -because of Huelsenbeck, if my remembers are good, who found him to much "petit-bourgeois" and in despite of the good will of Tristan Tzara. Bertrand Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
FLUXLIST: THE ARSFUTURA SHOW
THE ARSFUTURA SHOW June 3rd to July 8th, 2000 Opening: Friday, June 2nd, 18.00 - 21.00h http://www.arsfutura.ch Eight years ago the idea arsFutura was realised: Promotion of contemporary art, focusing on New Media and Photography and a constant growth with and through the artists. In retrospect there are cornerstones, special works as reminders of special shows that were important in the process of forming our identity. After eight years of arsFutura Gallery, the desire to look back and to reveal this identity in showing it not only in its parts but in its entirety has emerged.* The survey attempts to make areas of tensions as well as the whole spectrum of our art transparent and to stimulate a discourse of positions, especially with regard to our continuous search for possibilities to break with conventions in art and to set new standards across borders. *Please visit our homepage for a survey of all previous exhibitions: http://www.e-flux.com/special.php3?link=www.arsfutura.chname=ARSFUTURA . http://www.e-flux.com To be removed from the e-flux mailing list write to [EMAIL PROTECTED], please include the word "unsubscribe" in the subject field.
No Subject
First-- In joining any list, one is made aware of the rules and guidelines of the list. One enters into a contract with these in joining. Of course, with time and experience, one may find oneself disagreeing with the tenor and tenets of the list. This often happens. An interesting question would then be, how to work for a positive, constructive change, if one cares enough about the issues and events of the list--how to effect this--without resorting to "flaming" or to simply leaving and beginning a new list, which may incorporate those changes one sees fit and inviting others to join this. The bottom line is that one is aware from the outset of the guidelines, rules--and has entered into a contract of one's own volition. (Unless of course coerced by say, having to join it for a class or peer pressure etc) That said, the issue of the censored person--any question of censorship is disturbing. Two other lists I am on have had to deal with this--one decisively, according to its tenets, the other indecisevely, and the problem drags on. In that way, the flamer (as in "flaming asshole", often--: "he's a real flamer"--meaning this)--the flamer has accomplished her/his goal and made buffoons of the others. Eventually, this too leads to censorship, but in more hypocritical fashion. There is a Zen parable relating to this idea of "beating a dead horse": A master and his pupil are on a journey through mountainous and deeply forested country to an isolated temple. On the way, they encounter a a dangerous, rushing stream. A beautiful young woman stands at the edge of one side, with a heavy sack. She is afraid to cross, though she must. The master puts her atop his shoulders and carries her across. They part ways, she taking another path. Many miles and hours later, the pupil says to the master--"why did you pick up that woman? Isn't it against our vows?" The master replies: "I put the woman down at the edge of the stream. You have been carrying her ever since". As a child I often noticed the strange fact that very intelligent people often yearned to demonstrate their intelligence--whether it was of their own conception and self-proclamation or bolstered by "proofs" in the way of tests, grades, degrees and so on-- they yearned to prove this by argumentation. Rapidly, the principles and questions of the arguments were abandoned, and it became a clash of personalities. Victory would somehow prove not only intelligence but a certain kind of might. "Might makes right"--"the squeaky wheel gets the grease"-- And so one received one's first lessons in sophistry and rhetoric. Thinking of this question of "putting principles before personalities", came across an interesting quote from Kierkegaard, cited by the Surrealist painter Andre Masson in an essay called "Painting is a Wager" (written in 1941 and included in THEORIES OF MODERN ART Edited by Herschel Chipp. Berkeley: U Cal Press, 1968; 436-40. The Kierkegaard quote is appended as a note by Masson, p. 440). I think it applies well to the kind of arguments and such that employ mere power plays connected with personalities rather than an essay in the action of a generative questioning and understanding of actions, events, questions, examples--and lead to more thought and work rather than the excruciating noise of ever louder amplifiers, leading to demogogery and the like. (Demi-god-ery for example.) Kierkegaard: We must not take the word contradiction in the mistaken sense in which Hegel used it and which he made others and contradiction itself believe that it had a creative power. Though personally I often enjoy the "witz" as Bertrand calls them (jokes) and participate in them, I also, like Bertrand, joined the list hoping to find a continual learning and opening up of questions which are involved with the history and events and ideas and objects of Fluxus, and their relations with other art/performance questions. Also, one hopes to contribute to this-- The agreement or disagreement is not so important as what one may find--and be able to make use of! Which raises the old question of the artist/maker as thief-- or--speaking of wagers as Masson and someone on the list did--that famous wagerer Pascal's proposition that "it is not the elements that are new, but the order of their arrangement". Which bears on the question raised on the list of the constancy or not such of nature--the question entropy/negentropy. (Two good books on this are: ART AND ENTROPY by Rudolf Arnheim (U Cal P I forget the year, also the title I may have reversed--itmay be "Entropy and Art"), and ORDER OUT OF CHAOS by Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle
[Fwd: FLUXLIST: How many listserv discussion list subscribers does it take tochange a light bulb?]
Forwarded from John Hopkins at Neoscenes: -- How many listserv discussion list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: 1,331 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs 53 to flame the spell checkers 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to another list 203 to demand that cross posting to other lists about changing light bulbs be stopped 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this mail list 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversey 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ 48 to propose new change.lite.bulb newsgroup 47 to say there is already an alt.light.bulb newsgroup 143 to ask if anyone ever did change the lightbulb --
Re: FLUXLIST: wild horses couldn't drag me away
In a message dated 06/24/2000 11:54:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a Zen parable relating to this idea of "beating a dead horse": There's also an Arkansas parable relating to this idea of a "dead horse". Billy Joe and Dwight were brothers who lived together, and Dwight was younger and also had a few burnt tubes in his cerebral media center. Billy Joe would get extremely angry with Dwight, even though he knew Dwight wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box, because Dwight was so damn stupid. Probably it was Billy Bob's fear of his own lack of intelligence, but this is a joke, not a therapy session. Dwight would say, "Hey Billy Bob, what's that thing you're running up and down on, you ain't gettin nowhere." "It's a stairmaster, you idiot," Billy Bob would say. "I'm not going anywhere, I'm exercising." Or Dwight might say, "Hey Billy Bob, what's that dumb thing you got on your head?" And Billy Bob would say, "It's the official hat of the Shriner's you stupid imbecile jerk. I am a member of an elite club which you can never hope to join." And this was how life was for poor Dwight, everytime he tried to learn about Billy Bob's world, he would get pounded with insults and emotional injury, and even Dwight, a slow thinker, had feelings and could feel the pain of degradation and rejection. One day Dwight went out to the barn to feed the animals, and Roman Soldier, the old pull gelding they'd had since boyhood was motionless and down on the floor his stall, fat and dead. Suddenly Dwight saw a way to communicate to Billy Bob how painful his insults were. Billy Bob came home that night, barely nodded to Dwight, took a beer out of the refrigerator, popped the top with his teeth and chugged it down. Then he walked towards the bathroom. Dwight watched calmly as his brother opened the bathroom door and muddled in. A few seconds later Billy Bob shrieked: "What the hell is this in the bathtub?" Dwight sauntered over to the bathroom, looked his brother smugly in the eye and said, "It's a dead horse you ignorant sonofabitch."
Re: FLUXLIST: Trial by e-jury
Free Fluxlist Now! /:b I appreciate brad's desire to have an open forum. I agree with him. -- rosalie gancie
FLUXLIST: Dead animals (fwd)
carol starr taos, new mexico, usa [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 08:02:01 -0400 Subject: Dead animals Story in today's NY Times on the growing use of dead animals by artists-- http://www10.nytimes.com/library/arts/062400animal-art.html
Re: FLUXLIST: wild horses couldn't drag me away
A horse was brought to life when the European dadaists stuck a knife in a dictionary in the word dada, which meant hobby-horse. Let us not beat a dead horse. Let us bring a horse to life, eh? And let it be a hobby-horse, and we can all ride it. Smile. Fluxus is watching you. PK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 06/24/2000 11:54:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a Zen parable relating to this idea of "beating a dead horse": There's also an Arkansas parable relating to this idea of a "dead horse". Billy Joe and Dwight were brothers who lived together, and Dwight was younger and also had a few burnt tubes in his cerebral media center. Billy Joe would get extremely angry with Dwight, even though he knew Dwight wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box, because Dwight was so damn stupid. Probably it was Billy Bob's fear of his own lack of intelligence, but this is a joke, not a therapy session. Dwight would say, "Hey Billy Bob, what's that thing you're running up and down on, you ain't gettin nowhere." "It's a stairmaster, you idiot," Billy Bob would say. "I'm not going anywhere, I'm exercising." Or Dwight might say, "Hey Billy Bob, what's that dumb thing you got on your head?" And Billy Bob would say, "It's the official hat of the Shriner's you stupid imbecile jerk. I am a member of an elite club which you can never hope to join." And this was how life was for poor Dwight, everytime he tried to learn about Billy Bob's world, he would get pounded with insults and emotional injury, and even Dwight, a slow thinker, had feelings and could feel the pain of degradation and rejection. One day Dwight went out to the barn to feed the animals, and Roman Soldier, the old pull gelding they'd had since boyhood was motionless and down on the floor his stall, fat and dead. Suddenly Dwight saw a way to communicate to Billy Bob how painful his insults were. Billy Bob came home that night, barely nodded to Dwight, took a beer out of the refrigerator, popped the top with his teeth and chugged it down. Then he walked towards the bathroom. Dwight watched calmly as his brother opened the bathroom door and muddled in. A few seconds later Billy Bob shrieked: "What the hell is this in the bathtub?" Dwight sauntered over to the bathroom, looked his brother smugly in the eye and said, "It's a dead horse you ignorant sonofabitch."
Re: FLUXLIST: Trial by e-jury
The best lists I know are unmoderated. Sometimes, the "listowner" gives comments, but nor very often. And, btw, the best listowners I know are women. H.
Re: FLUXLIST: horses, dead and alive
ann klefstad wrote: (see Forer, Kathy, 2000) I'm not sure what this means, but as long as it's not Forer, Kathy (19XX-2000), it seems harmless enough ;) Forer, Kathy
