This mail is a protest against the removal of antiorp from the
three mailinglists this mail is going to. At the same time it
is a contemplation of what these lists mean to me and maybe to
others. What is it, that people get so uptight over having to
delete mails. I am sure they delete most of the other postings
too without ever reading them. Do we have the lists we have like
we have 'the right newspaper' or magazine? Just to give ourselves
the idea we are on the right track, because at least we know the
headers of the latest thread that was produced by some people that
know what is best for us?

The problem is complex because it has been lying around for too
long. The problem is that we never really talk about the tool and
manner we chose to communicate with. Nettime listowners once said:
it is not useful to discuss the list on the list. Why is it not
useful? Is it useful to let a list bleed to death, miss loads of
chances to enhance a discussion and miss chances to understand better
what we are doing?

The three lists are very different, but all seem to have the pretention
to be some sort of community that is heading for the best there is
to offer in the particular subject it is dedicated to. The lists are
supposed to be critical and in search of new paths that fit with
the medium it is situated in. I think throwing someone like antiorp
off is not going to help with this. I was in favor of throwing people
off in the past, for different reasons, but I think now this is
wrong. It narrows the scope of the list in an unexceptable way.

Take for example the reason why nettime moderation started: the
namespace debate became so faul that people told others to "go in the
corner and piss on themselves". Was the person who wrote this
removed? No. He is a friend who just lost control for a moment.
Another example: on xchange a guy hangs out who has been seriously
harrassing me in real life, and who has been making problems in Linz
for someone else, a real life sucker. Is he removed? No. He is a
friend who lost control for some moments.
All fine. But to remove a dilletant, one of the few, if not the only,
listpunks, because of a different way of communicating sucks.
Especially as this person obviously is very young, and on top of
that, knows the medium very well. From corresponding with it I know
it certainly has more layers then simply cursing and insulting.
I will include a mail from another list about this, which I liked
a lot, and which has respect for antiorp.

What can you see reading some of the discussions that happened on
other lists where antiorp got into trouble? First of all, there
are many dicussions about the yes or no of throwing someone off.
This is the first thing that bothers me: it never happened on
either nettime, xchange or rhizome. I would not be surprised
if people did not even know it was going on. Moderators on all
three lists seem to work from the rumor that "this person has been
causing problems everywhere, so let's throw him off immediately".
Then on the other lists people acknowledge antiorps 'occasional'
intelligent and mindstirring comments, and most of all its
excellent code writing, especially with soundsoftware.
But the most important thing one notices is the extremely bourgois
posts of people who even admit never to post, but who now -have-
to say how relieved they are antiorp is gone. I do not want to be
part of this attitude, of this narrowminded, clean designer office
crowd. (no offence meant to openminded people in clean designer
offices)

I have been very displeased when the moderation button went on on
nettime. As I have written allready, I want an open list. It is
ridiculous that after a year (!) of moderation now the listowners
have still not been able to find a solution for this problem.
There have been several discussions, both in email and 'real life',
in which the listowners themselves proposed experiments with
an open list and a digest, maybe even a usenet group. The fact that
the majority of listmembers are lurkers who prefer their dinner
chewed, does not mean that the magazine/editor format is the most
suitable for what we want. But then of course: what do we want?
I wonder about that a lot lately. Net.criticism, mediatheory,
cyberfeminism, net.radio: in what way is the discussion around these
topics dominated by people in powerful positions outside the net,
who have built their careers on new media research? Why not let
more radical, new blood in?

I admit: there is probably no medium that has offered more to its
'audience' to participate then the net and its mailinglists. I
seriously doubt the way they are developing now though. Spin offs
of nettime like xchange and rhizome (yes) are gradually copying
the way nettime is developing. I was very surprised to hear about
Rhizome throwing of antiorp, as I know Rachel Green is in for
experiments and letting the list develop in its way. She likes
the noise on R-raw, and has even in the past made me like it too.
With xchange, the youngest, it seems even more sad: there are rarely
more posts there then announcements of web.casts, and when xchange
was invited for Ars Electronica the preparation for this went off list
completely, in the hands of a few. This far even nettime never went.
xchange owners are a bit too gentle in some ways and very hard in
others. Lack of experience? Too busy? While I think antiorp fits best
there!
I am not saying all the people behind this are fascists (antiorp
would say that for sure), it seems more like a lack of good discussion
and openness. This lack came to be because of the incredible speed
careers have been taking off in the fields of mediatheory, art on
the net and net.radio. There seems to be some kind of panic reaction
coming from it, the fear to loose control. This seems the main reason
why people react so fast and hard to antiorp. It is a human reaction,
and "humansukz". I like antiorp. I feel like that too often.

It might be good for both us and antiorp to live in peace. Why throw
away such a talent and keep so much overestimated academic bullshit?
(no offence meant to all relevant academic texts)

regards



J


--from MAX Digest

Date:    Wed, 7 Oct 1998 18:23:29 +0000
From:    Carlton Joseph Wilkinson
Subject: Antiorp, since you brought it up

It's your list, friend, you do whatever you want with it, but I for one
find your actions a helluva lot more offensive than his. I would have
spoken up sooner, but I had no idea this was even under debate.

I'll give you and the members of the list four points to consider,
ranked as to how important I think they are. Having done this, I will
drop the subject, at least for now.

1. He has earned my respect and continues to earn my respect by not
caving into shallow, routine standards like those you are trying to
apply here and by continuing to be exactly who is. If he had said, or if
he ever says, "I'm sorry, I'll try to keep my posts on the subject from
now on" -- my respect for him would vanish. Worse, with that one cave-in
he'ld have shown us that the antiorp we all knew up to then had all been
nothing but a disposible shtick. My sense is it isn't a shtick. It is a
deliberate choice to live a worthwhile life based on firm principles.
It's a culture of choice, like a religion, that he can't back away from
without losing himself. In that choice, he risks ( and knows it) the
rejection that you just handed him.

2. Antiorp's ideas are only ideas, they're not bombs, they're not
furniture he's asking you to store. They're ideas that you can ignore if
you want or ponder if you want or argue with or about if you want. They
are ideas that stem directly from the conversations on this list and
therefore are relevant to this list.

3. You imply that you've given him every opportunity to participate. But
you haven't. You've given him every opportunity to conform--which on
principle he can't do. His participation requires his voice, and his
thorny, difficult speech and confrontational, sometimes derisive style.

4. It seems right, what you've done, but it's not right. The illusion of
rightness is you hiding behind a common, thoughtless acceptance of
standards of how a community should operate in its own best interests.
But I tell you, order is not always in a community's best interests.
Let's say that again: Order is not always in a community's best
interests. The discourse needs to be preserved--we need to be challenged
on our basic assumptions, not in some "appropriate," rarified
philosophical forum, but where and as differences occur.

--Carlton Joseph Wilkinson

"If this is the case, and you cannot respect the majority of people's
wishes, I shall have to ask you to leave." --Christopher Murtagh

"reszpekt = bas!s ov ras!zm. fasc!zm. kap!tal!zm"--=cw4t7abs






*








 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(a) (c) (o) (u) (s) (t) (i) (c) ( ) (s) (p) (a) (c) (e)
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
information&comunication channel | for net.broadcasters
http://xchange.re-lab.net  (Xchange)  net.audio network
xchange search/webarchive: http://xchange.re-lab.net/a/