on Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:29:57 +0200 (MET DST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> on moderation and spams (several messages)

From: (Calin Dan)
Subject: unsubscribe (?!)

I don't know beyond guess who are the frustrated behind that
spam, but reminds me of a technique that I hoped not to encounter again:
opressing people in their own privacy with arrogant lectures about
I unsubscribe from that con list, and I wonder if somebody will
have the decency to make clear: 1. who is the brave person/commitee who
DIDN'T sign the calling mail? 2. with whose permition that
person/commitee uses an existing mailing list? That looks like Tesco
buying lists of potential clients. But now for free. Right?



Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:38:58 -0800
From: Peter Lunenfeld <>
Subject: Re: <nettime> on moderation and spams

>I'm sticking with nettime (classic). I find the moderation as it has been
>carried out to be desirable and not heavy-handed.  I don't mind that someone
>is starting a splinter group with a similar name, but I think it is bad net
>etiquette to take a mailing list and automagically sign everyone up as has
>happened with nettime free.  Because I don't have too much time to read
>eveything and because of the involuntary subscription I have unsubscribed.
>Steve Cisler

I have to agree with Steve Cisler, though I find the name
derivative and slightly silly. One of the things about listserves is that
they flare up and die out with greater fluidity than paper-based
discursive organs. If there are dissatisfied nettimers, by all means start
a new list, cross-post its address and doxas widely, and encourage the
like minded (and even more important, dissenters) to sign up. 

But I for one still value nettime highly even though, and perhaps because
I am not a part of its perceived inner cabal. I haven't been to any of the
meetings, have taken no part in the editing of the ZPKs, took on none of
the archiving, moderating, digesting, etc. In fact, I was a grateful
recipient of the gifts of others to nettime, and I want to thank all of
you for that. My path interesected with the list at its inception but I
was in Venice that fateful week in '95 to look at art at the Biennale and
was simply a spectator at the new media events. I didn't even join the
list for at least a year and a half, so I have no sense of an Edenic
moment from which the list has fallen. 

 I can't say I miss antiorp's posts, nor that I even noticed them much
when I got them (like so many of the partisans I too know how
to use a delete key). I always understood the idea of "collaborative text
filtering" as one that involved greater or lesser amounts of moderation. 

There was a complaint that nettime tried to reduce the discussion of the
list on the list, but that kind of navel-gazing, meta-rhetorical posturing
usually bores me to tears. On the other hand, I have enjoyed the texts,
discussions and arguments on nettime immensely. I can't say the same so
far about I haven't unsubsribed yet, but I expect I will. 

Count mine as another voice in the ether in support of nettime's
development -- past, present and future. 

Peter Lunenfeld


Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 02:17:42 +0100
From: miekal and <>
Organization: Awkward Ubutronics
Subject: Re: <nettime> on moderation and spams

Stefan Wray wrote:

> Filtering out Antiorp nonsense is fine with me. I don't have time
> for jibberish from anonymous sources. There is enough jibberish from
> people I know that I have to read. If people think this is against free
> speech, now they can read as much nonsensical Antiorp jibberish as they
> want on the other nettime list.

this is a redickulous notion, that some kind of moderated objectivity
can be applied to languaged constructions of text, one person's
gibberish is another's FINNEGAN'S WAKE, seems like most of what filters
thru this list is chosen for its ability to speak the nettimespeak, I
like my language constructed realities to approach wilderness &

miekal and

-Dreamtime Village- <>
[hypermedia works by Miekal And, Liaizon Wakest, Lyx Ish & Allegra Fi
Wakest] -Qazingulaza- <>


Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:27:44 +1000
From: scotartt <>
Organization: Autonomous Organisation

Yes comrades, be free or we will shoot! 

This is not "free" - I did not freely choose to be here. Call a spade a
spade, its a prison, not a "re-education camp" and we're all in detention.
It should be properly named - nettime.spam. 

Why should I be lectured about "net freedom" by a list-owner (who has not
identified themselves) who obviously is such a net.newbie, they don't
understand basic netiquette. I know how to use majordomo. I refuse to do
so because I didn't operate it in the first to get on this spam-list. The
list-owner can face up to their own responsibility. Subscriptions to lists
are the users' choice! It's no better than MAKE MONEY FA$T as far as I am

It will make good essay fodder for nettime, that's for sure.



From: P Nathan <>
Subject: Re: <nettime> on moderation and spams

another vote for what Stefan and David wrote.

just how did all those (private) names and addresses get released 
to the people over at "nettime.assholes" ?

plus, their Majordomo was barfing on "unsubscribe" earlier...

moderate as thou will, shall be the whole of the -


Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:20:14 +0300
From: John Hopkins <>
Subject: Re: <nettime> on moderation and spams

antiorp sowed seeds of discord so simply and so
(fill-in-your-favorite-adverb, positive or negative) -- now stand back and
watch culture (cultcha!) disintegrate like Europe (well, everywhere else,
for that matter) tends to do anyway, given half a chance.  where's ma'
AK-47, or Kalishnikov, or ... 

Is this effectivity or affectation in action?


#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  URL:  contact: