Re: [human@electronetwork.org: Re: [Nettime-bold] the dominion ofnettime]

[bc <human@electronetwork.org>]

>if i send you something privately, it's reasonable to expect that
>it'll stay private. in this particular case, it doesn't much matter;
>but in general, it does matter. it might be a good idea to spend more
>time paying attention to what's actually in your email headers and
>less time speculating about what you think is in your webserver logs.
>
>cheers,
>t


  ummm, it did not seem that a message from a moderator and
  comments about my text, a private critque, no?, are really,
  in all actuality, private statements. thus. with mysticism in
  hand, i'd like to let you know that you've been a bit too much
  too many times, for a reasonable person to let insults go on
  by, all the while you seemingly are in the know about such
  things. it is all madness, i am sure you think, ted. it is all
  about speculating what is in webserver logs. what i think
  versus what people can 'know' by reviewing logs. well, it
  it hard to take such low-blows without a fair fight. so here
  you go, and by the way, get a hold of your snide remarks. bc



>
>----- Forwarded
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:52:41 -0600
>To: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
>From: bc <human@electronetwork.org>
>Subject: Re: [Nettime-bold] the dominion of nettime
>Cc: Nettime-bold@nettime.org
>
>>human@electronetwork.org (Thu 03/21/02 at 11:06 AM -0600):
>>
>>>   [this post being resent, as it was addressed to nettime, but
>>>   never made it into the bold archives, so another attempt...]
>>
>>brian:
>>
>>mail sent to nettime-l@ is *automatically* forwarded to nettime-bold.
>>                     ^^
>>mail sent to nettime@ is NOT automatically forwarded to nettime-bold.
>>
>>nettime mods don't manually forward anything to -bold.
>>
>>if you want something in the -bold archives, send it to -l.
>
>
>  ted and others,
>
>  i realized after posting the second message, that the first
>  went to nettime, not nettime-l, as my e-mail automatically
>  expands nicknames. my screw up. although i did not think
>  anything much of it, in terms of moderation, for your info.
>
>>
>>this is really simple; the rest--'interesting' use of the passive
>>voice, syntactic hopscotch, 'attempts,' etc--is mystification.
>
>
>  i don't understand if you are referring to the content of the post
>  i sent ted, and what you mean by this. this is really simple, what,
>  what i am writing about, well, maybe if you know what is going
>  on, if you're aware of it, but maybe not so simple if one has to
>  reverse engineer by way of effects, and not causes. then complex.
>
>  the passive voice is there for a reason. unless you want rage. if
>  so, i could do that in person if someone wants to say this to my
>  face, you know, offline. and also, syntactic hopscoth, that is
>  brain damage. so nothing but trying to communicate, unless you
>  mean wordstyling, which i tried to limit in this message. also, the
>  'attempts', well, what do you mean by this. what do you know about
>  what is going on that i do not. i have not accused you of anything.
>  unless, you feel accused. and if not related. well, then it confuses
>  me, as someone who has glee at another's destruction is no friend.
>
>
>
>>cheers,
>>t
>
>
>  cheerio, maybe.
>bc
>_______________________________________________
>Nettime-bold mailing list
>Nettime-bold@nettime.org
>http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold
>
>----- End forwarded message -----

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold