Re: Distributed creativity

Posted by yasir~ | Fri Nov 28th 2003 12:43 p.m.

The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw,
as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this be
remedied? Thx.

>y
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Sat Nov 29th 2003 3:52 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "yasir" <husain@cyber.net.pk>

    > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw,
    > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this be
    > remedied? Thx.

    Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read and
    but know we don't agree with.

    -e.
  • Michael Szpakowski | Sat Nov 29th 2003 8:29 a.m.
    Eryk
    I think its just a practical point -the list format
    can be confusing enough as it is.
    The lack of names makes it difficult to see exactly
    how an argument is being developed- you can't see the
    flow of argumant and counter-argument or not at least
    without considerable forensic efforts.
    Personally , although I'm pretty patient and
    tenacious, this tends to make me lose interest in what
    perhaps could be an interesting exercise.
    I suspect I'm not alone in this - there doesn't seems
    to have been the cross pollination that one might have
    hoped for between the two lists.
    regards
    michael
    --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "yasir" <husain@cyber.net.pk>
    >
    >
    > > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3
    > message comes thru Raw,
    > > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's
    > saying what. Can this be
    > > remedied? Thx.
    >
    >
    > Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with
    > people we never read and
    > but know we don't agree with.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
    > open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    =====
    *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
    http://companion.yahoo.com/
  • yasir~ | Sat Nov 29th 2003 8:52 a.m.
    I'd hate to agree w you but I don't.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Eryk Salvaggio

    Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read
    and but know we don't agree with.
  • Rob Myers | Sat Nov 29th 2003 9:25 a.m.
    For a community list of individuals with established identities,
    anonymity does not help build trust.
    For a new community, particularly a politically active one, It might be
    good to have an anonymising list, where nobody knows who's saying what.
    It might well eliminate trolling, and might allow people greater
    freedom to express themselves.

    Note use of the word "might". :-)

    - Rob.

    On 29 Nov 2003, at 12:54, yasir wrote:

    >
    > I'd hate to agree w you but I don't.
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Eryk Salvaggio
    >
    > Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read
    > and but know we don't agree with.
  • yasir~ | Sun Nov 30th 2003 3:58 a.m.
    Eryk:
    Your comment might be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but taken seriously it's a
    generalization. I actually don't filter people out on lists even when I
    know, generally speaking, what perspectives they are (usually) coming
    from. Its because I do take the time to read what they have to say. I
    check my predictability algorithm here. There are always fresh new
    things although a lot is also predictable.

    The problem I was having with DC mails wasn't just about who was saying
    what, but what they continue to say in an exchange. (is it still patrick
    who is saying this, maybe the initials are in the introduction of the
    moderators... ) When someone is explaining a position in 2 or 3
    successive emails, if these emails are as anonymous as the replies and
    other observatory emails (having no author identity at all) it does
    become a tangled web. One can follow threads only as part of text of
    emails by any number of people (that is by going thru them) without any
    differentiation of author id. My guess is its not deliberately done on
    the DC list - it might be the crossposting eliminating the whole header,
    that might be the problem. The emails are anonymized probably without
    authorial consent! (unless they have a signature)

    Rob:
    Anonymity on new lists, or established aliases on older lists are
    equally good if one wants to say something anonymously. Also one can
    always sign up with another id, as people were doing anyway earlier this
    year.

    Unrelated to this it was unfortunate that people started having
    meaningless arguments. One had to start ignoring a lot of those
    kandinkii-joseph mails hoping the exchange would die away. Also the
    introduction of membership fees had a predictable thining out effect.
  • Liza Sabater | Sun Nov 30th 2003 11:21 p.m.
    This is ridiculous. Talk about invading a community with no sense of
    who the eff is talking.
    People, turkeys aside, this is not working from the Rhizome list.

    On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 11:45 AM, yasir wrote:

    >
    > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw,
    > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this
    > be
    > remedied? Thx.
    >
    >> y
  • Francis Hwang | Mon Dec 1st 2003 12:43 p.m.
    I spoke with Richard Chung yesterday and he told me he's going to see if he can't play with the From: header to change the name part to switch to the name of the person who's speaking. So although all those messages will come from the same email address, they'll have different names and so should show up as distinct in your email client.

    F.

    yasir husain wrote:

    >
    > The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru
    > Raw,
    > as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this
    > be
    > remedied? Thx.
    >
    > >y
    >
Your Reply