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+opinion&funny+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 >overloaded with >anything but prose. > >ï >So far it may seem that my suggestion (to limit all FLUXlist >participation, from this moment >forward, to email posts containing only brief descriptions and links) >would require significant >effort for a system that is inefficient at best compared to the way the >FLUXlist has operated >since long before my arrival. > >Furthermore, some may argue that subscribers to the digest version are >not a >disadvantaged group at all, but rather, that those among them who are >annoyed with the >sheer volume of any of the posted writings also have the option to >receive FLUXlist posts >in the form of separate emails like other subscribers... > >BUT I say that this interferes with their freedom of choice! >why should digest subscribers have to scroll past material that bores or >annoys them? >and why should they have to receive separate emails as their only >alternative? >No. I suggest that the answer lies in completely restructuring the >existing FLUXlist. > >After all, if one member of the list has to post their messages in the >form of links, >then everyone should. > >Who's with me? anyone...? > >in all sincerity, >Scott Rigby
