FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST-digest V3 #10
I did, in fact, look at your sources. Not exactly the most unbiased sources of info on the middle east (yes, even Amnesty International!) in my opinion. Noam Chomsky?! Oh the pain. But of course I always take as gospel whatever Ted Koppel says... well for the sake of credibility why not humor us with some completely unbiased reporting? you completely missed the point on ted koppel as the U.S. media is decidedly pro zionist. one only need to look at the major op eds on the matter (ex. George Will) to see an almost verbatim rgurgitation of state policy. G. Will said something like all of the principle enemies of Isreal are anti-semitic and there's not even 1 contrasting view presented on the matter and for a major network newscaster to even ask a difficult question of say Ehud Barak about Isreali policy in the occupied territories is really RARE. common sense should tell us that at least there are many difficult questions on the matter. Look, I'm not going to argue with you. yet you are doing just that I've been down this road before. Why waste my time and the time of the Fluxlist folk? Arguing with people like you is like trying to argue with a drunk, there's no point. just like there is no point in arguing with someone that doesn't present anything besides arbitrary kneejerk responses. i'm dying for you to present a credible statement. Clearly the Palestinians (who are technically Jordanian) whoa a zionist!!! now we are getting somewhereon what do you base this claim?? the palestinians don't think they are jordinians. only zionist and the U.S. government thinks that, where as the rest of the world would disagree. one only needs look at the record of U.N. council voting to acknowledge that. so you think that the palestinian population should let zionist and the U.S. decide what they are? that's incredible! now we are getting somewhere! stealing everyones lunch money. no just demolishing homes, killing protesters, testricting access to water, bombing Tunis with no credible pretext (did that happen or didn't it?), violating international law, etc. even the U.S. govt officials are starting to wince... which is saying alot!! Reading the accounts of people you haven't met is not really helpful. I've known many people (both Israeli AND Arab) who live, work, and survive in that difficult terrain. They would all find your opinions (and much of your source material) dubious if not actually laughable. i'm very interested in this, who would those people be? can i talk to them? Here's a fact for you: Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples and see the world somewhat differently then the West. really? you mean the isreali jews, mostly immigrants from europe, see the world differently than americans or europeans? that's interesting...how exactly do they see it that is so different? zionist policy seem near identical to american policy towards the native americans during the colonial days. anti westernization is a pretty standard propaganda tool, Japan in WWII used anti westernization to motivate a population to support an invasion of china!!! yet it's totally a western kind of thing to do that!!! so it's just rhetoric, basically. Their values and methods of communications are organized rather differently then those of Europe et al. Perhaps the answer is to leave them to it and stop trying to inflict our Western morals and values on two peoples who probably don't need the aggravation. inflict?!?!? you mean the U.S. should stop sending huge subsidies and military aid to isreal (1/3 of U.S foriegn military aid goes to isreal)? i quite agree!!! that would be absolutely great. we could examine the distinct correlation between U.S. military aid and state violence by oppressive regimes, but i don't want to bring central and south america into it. we would be getting somewhere though.. But the real solution, of course, is to air-condition and carpet the entire region, then watch the tensions melt. i didn't say anything that even remotely resembles that, so you're sarcasm is quite confusing. i don't know who you are flailing at...so please clarify! ~json
FLUXLIST: re badgergirl
And what's more wearisome still is using this situation to propagate anti-Israeli sentiment among the under educated and ill-informed. Speaking of which, I'm very curious as to the sources of your FACTs. There are many ways to spin a piece of info, friend, (but clearly you already have this talent). i posted the sources of my facts..clearly you didn't even read them i will post some more even though you posted no facts to dispute anything i said. To refer to Israel's policies (of which you seem to know very little) as ethnic cleansing, state terrorism, and apartheid (for god's sake!) is reactionary and rabble rousing in the extreme. jeez even Ted Koppel has questioned isreali policy in the occupied territories where have you been the past 35 odd years? fair enough i will give examples of each situation apartheid: currently under isreali law it is illegal for palestinians even ones that are also isreali citizens (and i use that term loosely because they're not allowed to vote, so maybe second class citizens is a more accurate term) and currently living in isreal to own land or own a business. in terms of isreali law palestinians are not even human. in violation of UN 242 in the occupied territories palestinian arabs are resticted access to the majority of roads, making it difficult for the palestinian inhabitants to even obtain water. for your amusement i will provide some interesting quotes: There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, not one village, not one tribe should be left (Joseph Weitz, 1940). there is not such thing as Palestinians; they never existed (Golda Meir, 1969) We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters. (David Ben Gurion). Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population.. It is important to speak Hebrew, but it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through at playing with colonizing (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1939). and this one i think sums it up best In Jerusalem, land expropriation, ID confiscations, home demolitions, withholding of building permits, and the importation of settler colonies within and around the city have become constant elements of Israel's demographic engineering through ethnic cleansing. Hanan Ashrawi, pretty much confirmed in reports by amnesty intenational Note: Ashrawi is the only palestinian i have quoted the rest are from various govt zionist officials a good article with some interesting facts: http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/israeleth1.htm 2001 amnesty international report on isreal in the occupied territories: http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/ISRAEL+AND+OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES?OpenDocument 2000 amnesty international report: http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/countries/84837f03555284fd802568f200552934?OpenDocument 1999 report http://www.amnestyusa.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde15.htm these are the only amnesty reports i could find on the web several articles, with many facts. http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/meastwat.htm even more facts http://www.merip.org/ STATE TERRORISM: always called retaliation ... initially contrary to popular belief isreal wias infact the one who introduced terrorism to the middle east. the first incidents of the highjacking of planes and so forth was done by the isreali military during the first arab isreali war. the isreali military highjacked civilian palestinian airplanes to trade for soldiers captured during the war. a speciic example of state terrorism in 1985: the sequence is as follows: first came a PLO attack in Lanarca, Cyprus, where 3 isrealis where killed. The killers were immediately caught and placed on trial; they're now in jail. About a week later came the isreali bombing of Tunis in which, according to isreali correspondants, about 75 people where killed , 20 Tunisians, 55 palestinians, mostly civilians... [Chomsky, Chronicles of Dissent page 58] chomsky goes on to say and i'll just paraphrase, that the origionl lanarca attack was called retaliation for oft suppressed fact, for the isreali navy was using agents based in cyprus that were high jacking boatsisreali agants highjacking boats. all of that is fine and well EXCEPT the bombing of Tunis by ISREAL wasn't directed against the people who carried out the terrorist attack..ISREAL even conceded that the people they were bombing HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LANARCA ATTACK. it was just an easy target. when the people that did the attack probably came from Syria, but Syria can fight back. so isreal didn't retaliate against syria it bombed a defenseless target!!! that's the way it's done.of course with FULL U.S. COMPLICITY. and that's pretty typical, the norm, the status quo, definate state terrorism the origion of the word terrorism and i'm refering to the same article by noam chomsky
FLUXLIST: fluxism as anti state terrorism
the situation of terrorism is much more complicated than the view presented in U.S. and Isreali state policy. Any view of terrorism has to include the situations that feul it. One view of the socalled 'terrorist is that it's a last ditch means of resistance for a humiliated and oppressed people. Fact: prior to the gulf war Hussein was comitting his worst atrocities against the Iraqi people (for ex. the gassing of the kurds) largely with U.S. supportat the time he was the U.S's kind of guy. since the gulf war the U.S. has stead- fastly refused to give ant sort of assistance to any any anti Hussein elements. while at the same time enforcing policies like economic sanction that only commit itense harm against the iraqi people which only reinforces Husseins power over the region. FACT: the U.S. fully supports Isreal in their policies of state terrorism, ethnic cleansing, aparthied etc. even to the extent where the leaders of the palestinian resistance are gun downed with sophisticated U.S helicopters and other weapons. FACT: the islamic jihad and HAMAS in palestine was created by the isreali government to discredit the secular palestinian authority. which fortunately backfired as it's forced Isreal to negotiate with the palestinian authority. Essentially meaning isreal wanted terrorism and subsequently got much more than they bargained for. FACT the majority of the countries in rhe region are U.S. client states (isreal egypt, saudi arabia, formerly iraq and iran) client state meaning subordinate to U.S interests. a situation where the U.S. can control and exploit the engery rich resouces of that region. which hardly benefits the arab people...but that goes without saying. FACT U.S mid east policy much like the drug war in central and south america has done nothing but supply a not incosiderable amount of fuel for the fire in respect to islamic militants. the Taliban is the perfect example. without these policies islamic militants would be hard pressed to find any support among the arab population. meanig theses policies are pushing arab citizens away from demacratic elements that support diplomatic solutions and support self determination like the palestinian authority and towards militant fundamentalist factions. very simply the U.S. and Isreal wanted terrorism and subsequently got it. and now the government is using the WTC attacks to manipulate the american population into supporting an escalation of the same policies that bred terrorism in the first place. The rhetoric is hardly even disguised as bush speaks of nothing but winning as if it were a football game. That's exactly what it's becoming a situation where the U.S condems all terrorist acts EXCEPT ITS OWN, simply only when it's convienant for them to do and they have been doing this for years. ~jason pierce some good links for accurate information http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/toc-pal-isr-primer.html http://www.zmag.org/
FLUXLIST: subtitled
the Twelve Fate Game is now subtitled in mandarin http://www.onyxmirr.org/Game.html ~jason
FLUXLIST: Penchant Transgression [roughly 152 Bennett poems since oct 24th]
1 [sic] 2 and these mowers [automaton] 3 The sky is an immortal tent built by [marked by fast and nervous] 4 the Spectre and its cruel Shadow. [that are related to the squirls] 5 As to that false appearance which appears (more codons that are genetic nonsense] 6 Moving by compulsion each other, [considered a mulberry] 7 reasonings like vast serpents [a panic grass] 8 bruising my minute To measure time [connecting areas of equal rainfall] 9 The red globule is the iron scourges sun [such that size reations remain constant] 10 Wheel within revolve their terrors hang [of or relating to plants that are legumes] 11 false appearance which appears minute articulations. [congregational autonomy] 12 As of a globe rolling through delusion [an expanse of standing water] 13 The ratio of the spectator's organs Infold [a serotonin antagonist] 14 tinging morning with beams crook'd sickle [a vigorous english dance] 15 dominion is rent burnt for fuel; [a fashionable assemblage of notables] 16 Shall this marble built Necker Geneva [Lily of the valley] 17 o'ergrown with distress I strove to seize the inmost form [:PERFIDIOUS] 18 Stretch the hand that beckons vacuum [inferior remnant or offshoot] 19 With ardor fierce and shoals of flame, [widely disseminated with no discernable source] 20 From the deep and the solid , lacerating with knives [having a chorus representing satyrs] 21 for the tempest must fall It is Urizen [indefinate in history or tradition] 22 weeping in his burning robe, Daughters [required to bring about a given effect] 23 thy starry hosts round this Unseen [advocates the payment of tithes] 24 then turning to Burgundy, troubled: cisterns [being an embryonic precursor] 25 a shadow of horror is risen presses the human grapes [indiscriminate liquefaction] 26 the black winds of perturbation. and the deadly sport [control over resources] 27 The daughters of the Seraphim plates and screws and racks [piously or hypocritically solemn] 28 To fade away like transient day from her shadows bow [ 29 reclin'd upon his airy throne [usu. incongruous in style, treatment, or subject matter] 30 view'd the Worm upon its dewy bed [a globose fruit of many wood carpels] 31 Another England there I saw, whips their victims [an organized massacre of helpless people] 32 But burst the Crystal Cabinet ceaseless fires [an extensively bad or shocking example] 33 death sweat of the cluster cords Rivets my tenfold chains [and are used as dyestuffs] 34 A quiver with its burning stores cups of iron [: INFLATED] 35 anon a Serpent folding the nameless female stood; [syn see ELASTIC] ~json[sic]
FLUXLIST: missing [addendum]
if you will note on line 28 of my poem there appears to be a missing addendum.or one that appears to be not included. it was not intentional. knowing what sticklers you guys are for addendums i will provide it now with my most humble apologies 28 To fade away like transient day from her shadows bow [precursor to indoctrinated textile worship] ~json
FLUXLIST: The victorian age: [germanic marsupial addendum]
[sic] trap poor [fehlerhaft automaton] Thy transgressions, great and small. [Vermin` derung] I wandered through each chartered street, [zerstruet`] Every blackening church appals, [menthol metaphysik] Has bereaved of their life. [lilliputa`ner milizen] craving wind attend each night [abhoren eideche nein ein marsupial] My emanation far within tempests [reiseroute kanguruh`] And with cold down palace-walls. [vermeid`lich junggeselle] Crown with wine wintry hail and rain. [bana`nen nicht auf marsupial] The mind-forged manacles Seven of my [es der frisch frucht] Their marble tombs I built youthful harlot's curse [der possum veri`ckein] Marks of weakness incessantly [klammern von der haupt wiesel] plagues the marriage-hearse scents [mangel leiden klarstellung] ME
FLUXLIST: resistance is futile with fresh fruit addendum
lichtomorph [cumquats] me likey sue likey, tedious [granny smith apples] akhenaten no new, no knew [fruit salad] coup de tete` coup de chapel [insert your own with respect to fresh fuit] no plainer.not lack (ing) in squid like pathology [mangos] tedious repetition...with respect to [loganberries] crows feet hemlock shrilleliegh, mimetic conversion [elderberries] blowing into straws is technically avant farce [blackberries] mimeosis...scum derelict mere, king lear [indigenous fuit] incrustation did incrue, indign indulge [pear shaped ladders] in-di-um: a malleable fusble silvery indeterminate in [strawberries] shape or structuremarked by a lack of discretion [coup de seedless grapes] stating what a real or supposed origional speaker said [revisited pomengranates] lacking distinctive qualities, low melting point [the great apples of Shanghai] native or inhabitant of indochina meiosis groupings [tutenkamen buried with no fresh fruit] of the period of Cromwell [not to say egyptians didn't appreciate fine fresh fruit] Micheal Ellis [psuedonym resembling prickly pear]
FLUXLIST: re anti art
i didn't write that...why are you trying to pin that on me? i never use the word daft either. if that were me writing that i would have definately used silly, tedious or asinine in that sentance instead. j At 4:44 PM -0700 6/5/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Ack. I did not write this. I think Jason Pierce did. I would never use the word daft unless I was making fun of the English. Here is another quote on our topic (anti-art, not making fun of the English):
FLUXLIST: re re anti art
that just brings up the point i made, maybe i stated it a little unclearly. i will attempt to clarify..intent can never actually be known. clearly vangoghs statements regarding his intent were entirely incongruous with his actual work as a result. his intent, he claims, was to be accepted... he was not. so this statement has very little to do with what the result of his artistic efforts were. yes his statement is a result of his intent but it's a seperate result incongruous with his other efforts. so we can discern next to nothing from this. it suggest no relavent meaning to the result (the painting not his statement). to evaluate something is to get at the meaning of the actual thing, the result. examining intent or the attempt to through viewing seperate results of his intent can provide no further information in regards to the meaning. ineffect van gogh by attempting to state his intent is just becoming another spectator thus no authority on the result (his paintings) of his efforts. At 4:08 AM -0500 5/30/01, jason pierce wrote: but, as you said before, the artist's statement is a 'result' as well... why shouldn't we concern ourselves with language as an observable phenomenon as well? clearly many people 'should' because they agree with what you said earlier. In the sense that both are a communicative gesture, an attempt at articulating something (through words or a grammar of painting), both are 'the exact same thing'. so it doesn't matter what van gogh said he intended to do or wanted. it is more important what he actually did. again, what is the difference between what he 'said' and what he 'did'? are his letters to his brother any less 'things' that were 'done' than his notes, drawings, or paintings? If anti art is, as you say, 'anything produced outside the preconceived societal [pre]conceptions of art that communicates or operates within the artist - spectator milieu'... then vanGogh's writings are more 'anti-art' than his paintings because they were/ are not generally seen as art (although they operate very prominently in the 'artist - spectator milieu'). this is true, his writing were more anti art. but they are unrelated to the result of his painting efforts. it's fine to evaluate them but not as intent. they need to be evaluated as distinctly different things that don't really offer any new meaning to his paintings. i think this whole van gogh/anti art example isn't a very good one because he was producing paintings. paintings of things were considered art and van gogh may just point to the distinction between the societal view of non art and the view of bad art. by vangogh detractors stating that is not art saying it's not art or that it is bad art? this question further demonstates the difficulty of examining intent. by your definition, anti art would seem to be anything that an artist does, so long as it is observed (by someone other than the artist?), and that it is not generally conceived of by the observer(s) to be 'art' as such. The artist's observable behavior, clothing, and especially speech or language (certainly including communicated 'intent') fit into this category. so why not concern ourselves with the artist's 'express intent'? expressed intent simply provides no essential context to discern the meaning of the result. better (more accurate) context can be derived from examining his social status or something. examing intent or any statement of only provides an innacurate context. jason
FLUXLIST: re anti art
i never suggested that artist have little idea, and even less control of what they do. but you interpreted it that waythats what i'm talking about. more that artist have little idea or control over how it is viewed. or just that intent is no authority on meaning. obviously M. Duchamp would be a special case as he just manipulated these intent and result discrepancies through experiments. but his knowledge of the artistic process came from empirical examination that is often absent in most art (prior to him anyway). his knowledge didn't come from his intent. more so his intent came from his empirical observation of results. so generally kind of ass backwards as far as most art goes. jason At 3:02 AM -0700 5/30/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: fair enough, but don't we still 'intend' to do this? A silly rebuttal, I know. but on the scale of rhetorical balance between describing artists (and yourselves) as either having too much agency and having too little agency, you and Jason are both narrating about the same story. you both present a well organized picture in which the person (in this case the artist) has little idea, and even less control, of what they do (clearly not too little agency as to be a puppet, but curiously not enough to be able to have any self direction when it comes to the co-production of meaning). Isn't is possible to maintain intentions (for the meaning of their work, and otherwise) while at the same time recognizing that there may be other connotations, functions, and significance that others may derive from it... and that this is beyond the control of even the most careful, thoughtful and skillful manipulator of materials and meanings?
FLUXLIST: re anti art
iieee! did i say preconcieved societal conceptions? i meant to say societal preconceptions sorry, jason
FLUXLIST: rereresol
i am responsible for my own actions. the choice was mine. i didn't foist responsibility on my friend. a bogus theory is pure conjecture on your part. or do you claim to know exactly what every person is thinking? or do you have proof that i am the only one that felt Bennett was posting too much poetry? by all means if you do please show me. i'd be more than happy to say my theory was bogus. jason At 10:44 PM -0700 5/27/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: I know I said I wasn't going to say any more on this but this is so hard to pass up. At 07:19 AM 5/27/01 -0500, you wrote: actually it was just me and one of my friends. he kind of put me up to it. if you're trying to get me to rat out someone else i'm not going to do it. Get you to rat out someone and you're not going to? You may not have given a name but you just ratted him out in spirit by foisting the responsibility for your actions on him. the faction thing was a joke. my theory was that me and my friend weren't the only ones that thought bennett was posting too much poetry. Guess you had a bogus theory? so there I should say so! You just told me, didn't you? This is perfect!!
No Subject
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
FLUXLIST: rerere deborah
yet another erroneous attack. i never said he should'nt be able to post. this would be the tenth time i've said this, i only suggested that he post his poetry with links. i am noting you are fond of hacking up straw men. you know what a straw man is don't you? in case you don't it's where in an arguement one attacks a fabricated construction, i.e makes up false things about the opponent and then proceeds to criticize based on that. jason At 10:44 PM -0700 5/27/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 13:50:27 -0600 From: Deborah [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: rere vote, links for everyone At 03:38 PM 5/27/01 -0500, jason pierce wrote: that brings up another thing if somebody wants to publicly post their poetry they should expect a little negative criticism. it kind of goes with the territory. Saying someone's work shouldn't be posted, when they happen to be prolific, is not critiquing. It's an attempt at censorship. Deborah
FLUXLIST: re BULLY
i guess deborah can throw her bogus theory theory out the window now. i must note that terrence is being much more tactful than i was, but then he wasn't erroneously attacked. i agree with terrence j At 10:44 PM -0700 5/27/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 19:25:14 -0700 From: Terrence Kosick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: re BULLY Terrence writes; I would like to see Mr. Bennets poem posts. Even every day. 3 long poems at a time is too volumous to enjoy the work. I can only read one carefully to enjoy. I don't like skimming poems, it feels sinful to waste precious words that way. I agree the rapid posts does seem too aggressive. Maybe not as abusive as Brad's posts but maybe a bit inconsiderate. Do you care about your audience or your art enough for self moderation? best. artnatural
FLUXLIST: re: jason pierce
you are right, i apologise, though you may never read this. jason reply button fever (at least delet irrelevent parts of the original message!)
FLUXLIST: re BULLY
bully? i don't see how i'm being a bully, as all i did initially was make a request. then i was attacked for it as being sneaky undemocratic and against freedom. if i'm a bully then carol is a bigger one. admittedly i flamed on a bit overzealously but erroneous attacks like that chap my hide. everyone has that one thing that you can't stand and for me that was it. i tried to be polite by making a private request, i was attacked for it, then bennett posted like 3 more poems which must have been just to antagonize me. like a neener neener situation. if i were in Bennetts shoes in that situation i would have acted completely differently. you know do unto others etc. i'm an artist as well and i didn't freak out when my freshman painting teacher called me a flake. i didn't hurt my feelings either. it's much better than everyone walking on egg shells when it comes to criticizing someone elses work. in certain situations harsh criticisms if they are accurate can be very beneficial. harsh criticism could make Bennett a better artist, who knows? j At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Jason Pierce, Why you seem so invested in getting your way about this is beyond me. Try to get along with others, have some good manners, or if you can't, leave and create a stir elsewhere. I don't think anyone likes a bully. Mick
FLUXLIST: re FLUXLIST
i would normally leave but except for a few things i like the fluxlist. i'm loving it because it brings up alot of social ideologies i don't really care how much attention i'm getting. if i were a spectator in this i would be just as interested or loving it so to speak. jason At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:10:17 -0600 From: Deborah [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST-digest V1 #708 At 01:41 PM 5/26/01 -0500, you wrote: Self Defense!!! Another way to truly defend yourself would be to leave. But then, I suppose, you wouldn't get all this attention. Keep on keepin' on. You must be loving it! Deborah
FLUXLIST: rerererere sol
actually it was just me and one of my friends. he kind of put me up to it. if you're trying to get me to rat out someone else i'm not going to do it. the faction thing was a joke. my theory was that me and my friend weren't the only ones that thought bennett was posting too much poetry. so there jason At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:13:44 -0600 From: Deborah [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: rererere sol At 01:58 PM 5/26/01 -0500, jason pierce wrote: fine with me, i was just trying to help out some friends that were irritated with Bennets poetry bombardment. YES! You've said it again. The last bastion of those with no cause. A league of supporters whom no one knows! Email lists at their most stereotypical best. So much for creativity!! Deborah
FLUXLIST: rererer FAPA
very similiar to watching the same comercial over and over. i feel like i'm taking a test or something, what's with all the questions i'm getting? is being annoyed by monotony that difficult to understand? jason At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:25:34 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: rerere FAPA In a message dated 5/26/01 3:06:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on the digest when bennett post like 3 poems on one digest you are kind of forced to read it as you scroll down. plus it just condenses the information. i was not aware that scrolling down was such a terribly difficult activity forgive my lack of sensitivity
FLUXLIST: while i'm at it
i agree with everything josh says or will say on the issue of anti art. jason At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:31:07 -0700 From: Josh Ronsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FLUXLIST: RE: Questions (anti-art) A day after I posted my question, I came across the following passage in Rationalizing Culture: IRCAM, Boulez and the Institutionalization of the Musical Avant-Garde by Georgina Born: However much an avant-garde attempts to produce work that is unclassifiable, shockingly different, it is a truism that in order to be meaningful [sic!] it must, by definition, ultimately be classifiable as art by an audience; or it may be understood as the negation of art -- the reaction that the avant-garde typically sets out to provoke in the Philistine audience. The latter against art classification appears, historically, to be particularly permeable, so that by the intervention of critics, against art comes eventually to be undersood as part of art. There remains some avant-garde art that is unacceptable to all but small and knowing audience. But as long as anti- or avant-garde art is recognized as legitimately part of art by the dominant institutional apparatuses, it is granted the status of art and becomes a negational statement within the field of art: a powerful agrument for the ontological priority of the institutional over the aesthetic. So there. But what can she mean by meaning can only be found in art? - -Josh Ronsen http://www.nd.org/jronsen
FLUXLIST: re scott rigby
i must note if you continue to insensitively mock me then sol will have you removed from the list. or is it that only i would be removed for insensitive mocking? how dare you insensitively mock me pretty good job though jason At 11:43 PM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 02:49:23 -0500 From: scott rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FLUXLIST: re:vote: links for everyone - --F1DFF375C803AFC5FB3D1DD7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type=54455854; x-mac-creator=4D4F5353 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit to JP and all FLUXlisters, 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/fluxlist@scribble.com/msg06065.html alan bowman writes a fffo announcement http://www.mail-archive.com/fluxlist@scribble.com/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/fluxlist@scribble.com/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+opinionfunny+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
FLUXLIST: rere vote, links for everyone
that brings up another thing if somebody wants to publicly post their poetry they should expect a little negative criticism. it kind of goes with the territory. why post it to be left alone? that is the worst crime in the art world is people leaving things alone. that is how things get better, by critical dialogue. which i must note is what poetry itself is opposed to or at least the majority of poets. that's why most poetry is so bad, it's opposition to critical dialogue. i tend to agree with Bahktin on that issue. if only my Blockade tournament had gotten this much negative feedback. (sniff sniff) jason At 5:45 AM -0700 5/27/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: If one does, everyone ought to. I agree. And, it's possibly the silliest thing I've read in a long time. I want to hurry this post along so that it will make it into tomorrow's digest which will be, for the most part, empty bickering (me included) about something that is terminally ludicrous. Why not just let the man post his poems and go in peace?!?! Life is so damned short... Deborah .. who will honor you all by saying no more about the subject.
FLUXLIST: ideology and social context
i think the most interesting thing in this Bennett debate is the relationship between unpopular perspectives and accepted perspectives. notably, how these unpopular perspectives and opinions are held up to a more intense brand of scrutiny (ofcourse). wheras if one presents an unpopular opinion one has to provide much more evidence whereas accepet views are merely understood. this is most interesting in regards to evolutionary contexts of thought proccesses. the unpopular view is stregthened by this scrutiny and the accepted view is weakened by it's untested acceptance or the popular views' resistance to scrutiny. which is a little baffling (not really) when a view is so resistant to a mutually beneficial relationship. i.e how would we know that nazis are bad if there were no nazis?, or the converse, how would we know a popular view would be corrupt with no Socrates? i've come to the understanding that if i don't get attacked for some of my statements i may be doing something wrong. ofcourse just stating things to get attacked is silly. so i have two good criteria, restrictions so to speak in which to make statementsif i make a statement that doesn't get attacked i must be stating an accepted view, fair enough but if i make a statement just to be contrary to accepted views then i am i have no justification for stating them. out of all the broad range of attacks the i've recieved the only legitimate concern was Deborahs' i think, that i'm just stating things to be contrary or to get attention...simply i don't think i was doing that, or i wouldn't have done it. but obviously i need to provide some evidnce and the only thing i can point to is that i've been a subscriber to fluxlist off and on for quite a while and if i were doing that i would have stirred up trouble long before now. i remeber a while back getting irritated with some of that guy Dick Higgins' views on how the sixties was so much more interesting i.e. better than now or something. which i thought that view was asinine, defeatist, and just pure nostalgia pathology, of which i am vehemently opposed. ofcourse i didn't feel compelled to attack because he didn't keep saying that over and over nor bombard repeatedly me with that view. he was entitled to that view. though i must also point out that i'm not the authority on whether i am just trying to get attention or whatever but neither is Deborah so the issue is just subjective conjecture on her part (and mine as well). jason pierce rep. FAPA
FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST-digest V1 #708
Self Defense!!! j At 11:33 AM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: At 01:29 PM 5/25/01 -0500, you wrote: my apologies but i am still going to post mock poetry untill bennett stops. Aggression!!! So much energy focused into the head of a needle for the forcing of one's will. sigh Human nature? Dull , at best.
FLUXLIST: re carols response
carol, get a more origional comeback. j At 11:33 AM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: jason, get a life. c.
FLUXLIST: rererere sol
fine with me, i was just trying to help out some friends that were irritated with Bennets poetry bombardment. j At 11:33 AM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Dear Jason, As I said before you've made your point. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with this issue. If you respond to any more of John's work in this manner then as far as I'm concerned you can find another list to be a nuisance on and I will take the necessary software steps in that direction. Fluxlist has had too many problems like this before. I ask that the other listowners make some statement on this if they feel I'm acting unfairly, obviously there should be a group decision on this and my response now is merely to state my position. Unfortunatey I don't currently have time to say more on this matter. Jason it's your choice. I would prefer that you remain on the list and participate with creativity and sensitivity, if you don't feel you can do so then that's your decision. cheers, Sol.
FLUXLIST: rerere FAPA
with a link, a fluxlister (more notably the digesters) that doesn't want to read it doesn't have to. and a fluxlister that wants to read it can. on the digest when bennett post like 3 poems on one digest you are kind of forced to read it as you scroll down. plus it just condenses the information. good enough answer? j At 11:33 AM -0700 5/26/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: dear sir, please explain, thoroughly, the difference that is made between posting a link to each poem, and posting the actual poem. so far as i can tell both produce an e-mail from mr. bennett, and one has the ability to either ignore or partake of both as they should so choose at the moment. perhaps there is a distinction i am not seeing? i drool on mine keys in anticipation of yer answer.. - -skt...
FLUXLIST: rerer vote
A) should we have a vote on these issues? yea for vote nay for no vote 1) 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 bombardment 2.) maybe another vote as well on Bennett should quit posting so much poetry. yea for less Bennett poetry nay for continued bombardment 3) 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 fluxlist voting 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
FLUXLIST: re response to FAPO
who's complaining, bennett is not being considerate i beg to differ only 3 of those post were complaints the rest were my poetry. o.k i will quit refering to bennet in my poetry. if you recollect we asked him nicely. Bennet has posted ALOT of poetry. this would make the fourth complaint. i'm just saying every time he post a poem i am going to post one to mock him. we only ask that he post links to his poetry instead but obviously that is JUST WAY TOO MUCH TO ASK. since you are counting my post why not count bennett poems too? how many poems has he posted? my apologies but i am still going to post mock poetry untill bennett stops. that's right when did this become a poetry list??? i would like herr Bennett to answer murf du sag sig nog no non non non [ripened fruit] jurg ur red due sog [mixed fruit] becon fut your derelict mict [tangerines] mookoo mookoo moogo giapan [strawberries] mushu pork [almonds are not fruit] liggu ligggu shrimp fried rice [pomengranates] licko licko fundu for the masses [grapes, the seedless variety] jason pierce rep Fluxlisters Against Poetry Overload
FLUXLIST: re:response to FAPA
i want to address some of these things specifically: 1. my wish was not to make this public, it was a private request. it is only now public because Bennet or whoever desired it so. as i told no one except my co conspirators. so if anyone is irritated by this public issue you should know who to blame. 2. you are asking me to consider Bennetts feelings etc. simply, i did so to the best of my ability...i wanted Bennett spared of any public ridicule that some felt would be neccessary to get him to quit posting so much poetry. HENCE the private request. subsequently FAPA was attacked as being sneaky undemocratic and against freedom. and now is being attacked for not respecting his feelings. when that was the sole intent of the private request. so both criticisms are erroneous. 3. the only source of the lack of respect Bennett is getting is from his desire (or someone he told) to make the issue public. 4. as far as present discuss and theorize about our work i was simply presenting discussing and theorize about my work and Bennetts work. we don't object to Bennett presenting his work in the form of links, as we felt he has somewhat abused his presenting privelages, rights or whatever. 5. as far as the Tournament of Blockades goes only 2 submitions have been generated (both by myself) one: an anonymous blockade and two: a blockade of Bennetts poetry bombardment. so there is nothing to report. i also Blockaded some right-libertarians on an anarchy news group but i felt that blockade not worth submiting. 6. barring any further attacks against FAPA this will be the last that i personally will say on the issue UNLESS Bennett continues to post his poetry not in the form of a link (posting his actual poetry instead of providing a link to his poetry posted on an outside source) if he does then i will continue my personal blockading activities. so it's up to him if he wishes to coninue this lack of consideration for his feelings. as it was up to him from the very start. he had all the time in the world to consider that he may be posting too much poetry. Jason Pierce rep. Fluxlisters Against Poetic Aggression At 4:47 AM -0700 5/25/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Jason, This is addressed to you since you claim representation of FAPA. Since 14th September 2000 you have sent 14 posts to Fluxlist. 8 of these have been to complain about John M. Bennett sending poetry to the list. That means over 50% of your input to this list in the last 9 months has been complaint-based. Whilst I respect your right to say that you do not wish to see John's poems on Fluxlist I do not think the way you are going about this respects John's feelings in any way. In reality, in the history of this list, complaints and the sort of action you are now undertaking have led to more people leaving the list (or ceasing to post frequently) than anything else. Whilst some people may think that John posts too many of his poems I'm in no doubt that everyone would rather see the result of individual creativity in their inbox as oppose to the material you're currently posting which not only causes bad feeling towards John but on your own admission is designed purely to spoof John's form of creative expression and done in a manner (FAPA) that can only be hurtful and make John feel uncomfortable here. John joined Fluxlist because he saw a copy of the Fluxlist poetry book Happy New Ears that we did a while back. John's poetry has stimulated interesting discussion on the list in the past and no doubt will do so again. Those who don't like it can indeed delete it and for those receiving the digest version I don't believe that John's short texts can be that much of a burden even if his poetry does not appeal to you. Jason, I would urge you to stop this and consider the feelings of others a little more. When you subscribed to Fluxlist you will have received a long message about the list which included the following: Along with the obvious invitation to historians and theorists of the past, we encourage active artists to present, discuss, and theorize their work. John's posts fit into the above framework. Also from the introductory notes about the list is this: Several kinds of behavior will result in expulsion from Fluxlist. Abuse, harassment, impersonation, violation of confidentiality, reposting of private posts without permission and spamming are unacceptable. I think your spoof poems are bordering on harassment now and ask that you stop this campaign and post more positive material instead if you wish to contribute to the list. You've made your point, now is the time to let it lie before things get unpleasant. On a more positive note you never told us what happened with your 7th Annual Tournament of Blockades. Some info on how that turned out would be great. cheers, Sol.
FLUXLIST: Re: Bennett
furthermore the compromise was intially presented despite the fact that the request became somewhat distorted seeing as we never requested that he quit posting completely. nor did we want to prevent people that enjoy bennetts poetry from being able to read it. we felt links to his poetry would be amiable to both ourselves and mr bennett. in the private request i issued my intent wasn't to be undemocratic about it...and it wasn't undemocratic. it was just a private request. but if mr bennett wants to make a public issue of it, so be it. i personally have no problems with that. if bennett continues to post his poetry instead of just providing links and there are no objetions then there should'nt be any objections when FAPA defends itself against bennetts poetic aggression with bad poetry counter measures..bad poetry warfare if you will. as that was one of the initial proposals of at least 1 FAPA member. Jason Pierce rep. Fluxlisters Against Poetic Aggression At 9:42 AM -0700 5/24/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Hi all, There have been some complaints about the volume and frequency of John's posting his work to FLUXLIST and a faction has given him notice and asked him to cease and desist. While I agree that no one should be allowed to use FLUXLIST to disemminate their own work if it becomes a situation of the majority reading one person who dominates the bandwidth for his/her own purposes, I would just like to point out why I think John's poetry belongs on FLUXLIST and why the splinter faction might reconsider their position and try to come to some compromise re: John's participation. John Bennett is the Lautreamont of mail art. His magazine The Lost and Found Times is a shining example of a democratic editorship which translates Joseph Beuys' proposition that Everyone is an artist. into a new channel where Everyone is a poet. I got interested in poetry because of John's magazine. When I first received it I was fascinated and amused at a piece of printed matter that represented so many voices all playing the same game which was The Lost and Found Times. It was a community all joined together by John in the same way that Fluxus was a group all joined together by George M. I would just like to ask the so-called faction group to reconsider their request and to begin a dialogue so that somehow an agreement can be reached as to how John can continue to participate in FLUXLIST without some feeling that he is using it to promote his own work only. Also, one must take into account that poetry is what poets do. Maybe he could post larger installments less frequently or just cut back to an acceptable volume for the rest of the list? Reed Altemus
FLUXLIST: Re: Bennet
note that Carol is making the same arguements that spammers make you can just hit the delete button. and the delete buttom doesn't work with those that recieve the digest version of the fluxlist. no ones' freedom is being repressed. it is also not an issue of liking his poetry or not as personally i am ambivalent towards it but some people aren't. so the worry is over the health of the list. say someone doesn't like it and sees 7 or 8 (sometimes more) Bennett poems a week that's just one (or more?) person(s) unlikely to participate in the list. or dissmiss it as a bunch of people wanting to cram their poetry down your throats if you are stupid enough to subscibe to the list. ofcourse fuss can be fun too. some people owe me one. jason pierce rep. Fluxlisters Against Poetic Aggression At 12:18 PM -0700 5/24/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:35:08 +0100 From: Carol Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: John Bennett on FLUXLIST who are these sneaky people complaining off list. i enjoy john's peotry very much and i have been under the inpression that that fluxlist is about freedom of expression in the arts. we have garden discussions which could be said to be off topic (if there ever was one) and those are fun. so why this fuss. don't these complainers have a delete button? that's what i do when i don't want to read something. john's poetry has been very inspiring and educational. i think it terrible that this would even be an issue. don't forget, it was this kind of small mindedness that drove ken freidman off the list which has been a grreat loss. let's not do it again. FREEDOM FOR FLUXLIST carol
FLUXLIST: Blockade: FAPA response re aggresion
Title: Blockade: FAPA response re aggresion bloke, poke, stoat i think that i shall never see a tree as lovely as an ostrich in november Bennett pokereprise...anacromagnon ,not a word neophyte tourette parting glance. eclipsed in ardorous crater fixation, meaning in absence of such, mimetic dillusion, causing to enckroach such a stance. monologic suppression, though lacked in expansion, diminished arturistic crutch. poke, stoat did bloke abscence unfolds, untold a lack of willing to perplex tailhead minions, not withstanding, bombarded with chariots of mandarin, caustic. entranced, the health and well being, characterized by often specious reasoning complex pud or screen acujuncture dung kite (inflated embryonic sac) blocked out by the sun, stamped out thus Bennett entitle to dimwitted propagation. inscribed panels on the belly of each jar had also been chiseled...eyes twisting in the wind as they are reckoned so clearly dote, manicure insert your own random words repeat 50 times award yourself four dimes be wary of the mimes propegate dimwittedly until you hear the chimes spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam (monologic repression of social debate) FAPA At 1:44 PM -0700 5/24/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:49:04 -0400 From: John M. Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FLUXLIST: poetic agression - --=_29720615==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed John M. Bennett
FLUXLIST: Re:Bennett aggresion
Title: Re:Bennett aggresion instructions: feel free to copy/paste poem and resubmit 5 times a week to FLUXLIST, why bother with comming up with new random words. or you can insert your own random phraseology at any point of this poem. it matters little either way. bloke, poke, stoat i think that i shall never see a tree as lovely as an ostrich in november Bennett pokereprise...anacromagnon ,not a word neophyte tourette parting glance. eclipsed in ardorous crater fixation, meaning in absence of such, mimetic dillusion, causing to enckroach such a stance. monologic suppression, though lacked in expansion, diminished arturistic crutch. poke, stoat did bloke abscence unfolds, untold a lack of willing to perplex tailhead minions, not withstanding, bombarded with chariots of mandarin, caustic. entranced, the health and well being, characterized by often specious reasoning complex pud or screen acujuncture dung kite (inflated embryonic sac) blocked out by the sun, stamped out thus Bennett entitle to dimwitted propagation. inscribed panels on the belly of each jar had also been chiseled...eyes twisting in the wind as they are reckoned so clearly dote, manicure insert your own random words repeat 50 times award yourself four dimes be wary of the mimes propegate dimwittedly until you hear the chimes spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam (monologic repression of social debate) note that each spam in this instance rhymes (new addition) FAPA
FLUXLIST: Fresh fruit re: bennett agression
Title: Fresh fruit re: bennett
agression
fresh fruit addendum [sic]
bloke, poke, stoat [strawberries]
i think that i shall never see a tree as lovely as an ostrich
[pomengranates]
in november Bennett pokereprise...anacromagnon ,not a
word [bannanas]
neophyte tourette parting glance. eclipsed in ardorous [mixed
fruit]
crater fixation, meaning in absence of such, mimetic dillusion,
[assorted berries]
causing to enckroach such a stance. [raspberries]
monologic suppression, though lacked in expansion,
[blueberries]
diminished arturistic crutch.[kumquats]
poke, stoat did bloke
abscence unfolds, untold a lack of willing
to perplex [pineapples, deadly!]
tailhead minions, not withstanding,
bombarded with chariots [sliced kiwi]
of mandarin,
caustic.[bits of squashed apple]
entranced, the health and well being,
characterized by often [locust not a fruit]
specious reasoning complex [trees in
which fresh fruit grow]
pud or screen acujuncture dung kite (inflated embryonic sac)
[not to be undone, by pieces of unsuspecting mangos]
blocked out by the sun, stamped out thus
Bennett entitle [avocado, neither a fruit?]
to dimwitted propagation. inscribed panels
on the belly [fresh fruit residing in jeruseleum]
of each jar had also been chiseled...eyes
twisting in [ not to forget black berries]
the wind as they are reckoned so
clearly [like other pieces of fresh fruit]
dote, manicure [the squid like
tentacled pathology of peaches]
insert your own random words repeat 50
times [ oranges are popular]
award yourself four dimes [less so are
tangerines]
be wary of the mimes [the bitterness
expressed by lemons]
propegate dimwittedly until you hear the
chimes [cannot be refuted by limes]
spam spam spam spam spam spam
[chardonnay a fresh fruit derivative]
spam spam spam spam spam spam (monologic
repression of social debate)
[various species of plums to name a few]
note that each spam in this
instance rhymes (new addition) {the consumption of said fresh
fruit]
FAPA
FLUXLIST: sorry
i did not intend for this stuff to appear: At 3:37 PM -0700 5/24/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote: divto FLUXLIST, why bother with comming up with new random words. or you can/div divinsert your own random phraseology at any point of this/div divpoem. it matters little either way./div divbr/div divbloke, poke, stoat/div divbr/div divi think that i shall never see a tree as lovely as an my apologies!! jason
FLUXLIST: i forgot a title
i forgot to title my/your poem. i will title that: Blockade with fresh fruit addendum: when indeterminite poetry once relavent becomes diminished by poets perpetuating it not unlike as a crutch... essentially a disservice i was going to go with Instead of learning from a relevant source some people religiously(?) adhere to and perpetuate it like a crutch thus diminishing it's primary impact ..with fresh fruit addendum but that wasn't anywhere near as snappy. maybe i will just go with a nore simple Blockade with Fresh Fruit Addendum Jason Pierce rep. Fluxlisters Against Poetic Agression
FLUXLIST: Re: historical poems
uuugh! a panda is not a marsupial...
FLUXLIST: Tournament of Blockades news and FAQ
NEWS the Blockades Committee has arranged to have some of the entrants to be documented in a film tentatively entitled "The Blockade Builders: Trial by Fire", assuming there are entrants that live within driving distance from the Blockade committee headquarters. FAQ: are "dams" considered to be blockades by the committee? it depends, technically while having their blockade poperties "dams" usually aren't considered blockades because that blockade function is secondary in nature. "dams" though can be thought of as highly specialized forms of blockades, being dependant on the presence of water. the primary purpose of dams is quite different than that of a blockade. for example, a dams purpose is to reduce the flow of water considerably for whatever reason. subsequently a blockades of a waterway purpose is to restrict the use of the water way by mostly people but may or may not restrict the flow of water. and yes dams do fit both of these criteria but many in the committee feel that the blockade qualities of a dam are just secondary arbitrary effects of dams. so any documentation of a dam would have to focus on it's blockade qualities and somehow prove that this function isn't arbitrary. (see "post structuralism") what about "accidental" blockades? or blockades that is only a natural occuring phenomena like the sand that deposits on the drainage area of a street and blocks or alters the path of water, insects etc when it rains? The committee feels very strongly that the most important qualities of blockades lie in their intent and any such arbitrary nature of blockading is "not being true to the nature of blockading". though the committe rarley disqualifies an entry on this basis. the exception being when last year , a contestant submitted a documentation of a "beaver dam" as an example of a blockade was disqualified for "lack of effort". this was done so in respect for the other "blockaders" that spent a good deal of time in the construction of their examples. (see "driftwood sculpters") what's the difference between a "blockade" and a "barracade"? good question, much of this lies in semantics, but generally barracades tend to be much more temporary in nature. generally "barracades" tend to be much less thought out and hap hazard, used primarily as a defensive tactic where as blockades tend to be more considered and an "offensive" maneuver. What are some good historical examples of "blockades"? probably the best historical example is in WWI when the english and it's naval superiority used the tactic of a "naval" blockade against the germans. the end result being germanys desperate attempts to thwart this blockade by adopting an "open season" on all ships sailing in and out of the area by german Uboats. even passenger liners containing large numbers of the previously neutral americans. once the germans sank the Lusitania (albeit the germans were forced into this) the opinion of the rest of the world turned decidedly against the germans which lead eventually to germanys eventual surrender and subsequent harsh treatment by the victors of germany which entually lead to WWII. so in a way the english blockade set in motion all the events that lead to Hitlers eventual rise to power etc. (see "propaganda" and "the effectiveness of naval blockades") Jason Pierce Coordinating Chairman, Tornament of Blockades Committee
FLUXLIST: International Tournament of Blockades call for entries
i would like to announce the upcoming 7th annual International Tournament of Blockades
Rules for Competition:
1. contestant must first construct a blockade. in order for it to qualify as a blockade
it must blockade something, ie your door, a street, a river, your nieghbors door,
thought*,etc.
2. materials: all submissions of blockades must be made out of "ordinary" inanimate
materials
ie. sand, sticks, rocks, cement, bricks, gravel, conglomerate
material, battleships etc.
3. in order to be awrded the winner said blockade must be extensively documented
accepted documentation only includes photographs. aspects of the blockade that
need to be documented
and will be judged on:
a. it's functionality, how well it succeeds in preventing the entrance or exit or
general use of what it's
blockading.
b. permanance: mostly the durability of the blockade, it's ability to withstand
adverse climate changes,
people that would want to remove the blockade, etc.
c. aesthetic merit: blockades will be judged based on how "pleasing" it is to the
senses or how
well it communicates it's function in relation to the
society in which it exists.
or other worldliness, it's structural qualities (ie
style points)
4. all documentation must be submitted no later than july 12 2001, in order to qualify
for any awards or prizes.
photographs can be sent via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or snail to:
Jason Pierce
5626 woodrow ave #j
Austin, TX 78756
5. contestants may have as many entries as they please assuming each entry is a
seperate blockade, and not
different ones blockading the same thing. (ie 2 seperate blockades of the same
door) any entries that fall
under the aforementioned criteria will be counted as a documentation of the same
blockade thus one entry.
6. as well as being distributed various prizes all exceptional entries will be
displayed on my web page
(www.onyxmirr.org)
1st place: winner will recieve 2$ for every contestant that enters
(ie. 20$ for 10 contestants)
not to exceed 50$ cash, a congratulatory note
hopefully from some at least
semi-famous person, and a 1st place ribbon of
achievement.
2nd place: winner will recieve a 2nd place Ribbon of Achievement, a
congratulatory note from
probably a somewhat less famous person, and a
scholarship to MIT if said contestant
qualifies for such and submits the neccessary forms
to MIT and so forth
3rd place: winner will recieve a 3rd place Ribbon of achievement,
maybe a congratulatory note,
and a no expenses paid vacation to Calcutta,
probably the largest city in India
(population wise
that is)
* the judging of "mental" blockades relies solely on the discretion of the panel
judging the tournament. hence
"mental" blockade entries could be disqualified, or awarded a prize. so "mental"
blockade documentation
should be submitted only with the understanding that the entry is submitted at
the contestants own risk.
i look forward to viewing all the entries and want to wish all the contestants the
best of luck. if you have any
questions feel free to email me at the above email address.
sincerely,
Jason Pierce
Coordinating Chairman,
Tournament of Blockades Committee
FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST candidate
{insert spit take} 20,000$ for a "sarkin"? there should be some kind of
artistic code
of ehtics in place that says no one can sell ANY piece of art work for more
than say 1000$,
and no one can buy or sell art work by people that are no longer living.
throwing
that much money around for art just corrupts and trivializes everything
about it.
the whole thing just reeks of arbitrary hierarcy. i mean suggesting that 1
artists life
or work is monetarily more signifigant than other artists' life?.ok this
is starting
to sound like some kind of marxist aesthetic rant and i apologize but
still...
the whole thing is just comical at best. it would be more interesting if
sarkin never
had a stroke and the whole context was fraudulent. i would like to suugest
that
artists should now only move about (fraudulently) in wheel chairs and wear
aluminum
foil on our heads in order to extract "the big bucks" from a sentimentally
confused
society.
jason pierce
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FLUXLIST: all will be revealed
i have the photo that solves every single mystery known to man this photo is the key to the universe. when i discovered this photo and recognized it's implications i was bombarded by various death threats from groups that don't want this sort of information revealed. i found this photo on some paranormal site. i completely forgot exactly what's supposed to be so "paranormal" about it as it certainly isn't apperent in the photo itself. nevertheless if you stare at it long enough all mysteries will be revealed and the proper "frequency" will be obtained. see for yourself: http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/coranj?e.intl=us.flabel=fld3.from=c.pindex=1; start=1. src=ph.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/coranj%3fc%26.flabel=fld3%26.intl= us ~json[sic]
