marc garrett
Since the beginning
Works in London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (7)
BIO
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80's from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular 'Savage Yet Tender' alternative broadcasting 1980's group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) for a while with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS, dedicated to arts, technology and hacking.

Co-director and co-founder, with artist Ruth Catlow of the net arts collectives and communities- furtherfield.org, furthernoise.org, netbehaviour.org, also cofounder and co-curator/director of the gallery space called HTTP Gallery in London, UK. Currently involved in co-running, collaborating with many others on Node.London. Also co-curating various contemporary Media Arts exhibitions, nationally and Internationally such as Game/play a touring exhibiton.
Discussions (1664) Opportunities (12) Events (175) Jobs (2)
DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to dismis=
s one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is that it=
is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practice enough=
by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the end everyo=
ne looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - conscious gl=
ance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoats t=
hat can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of what=
is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certainly is =
not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be. All=
products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist str=
ategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is noth=
ing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if one=
expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as painting d=
o not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital, install=
ation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names, in=
stigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new languages, c=
laiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past as dead=
, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idiom. That=
is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over humanity, =
what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words...

marc

is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophically =
something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead ...............................................................=
...........................................................................=
.............

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hello Eryk,

I don't know. It does seem strange, almost useless arguing such a thing as =
this with you once again. We had a similar discussion about a year ago (I t=
hink) on this and I remember that we did not agree then and it does not see=
m will budge on our original interpretations on this (as you might agree, v=
ery worn out) argument. But just like you, I enjoy getting shifting cranium=
into gear and having a good chat about such issues every now and then. So =
with a warm respect for your position and ideas on such a thing, I will put=
my pennies worth into the glut. On an issue that probably will not be reso=
lved until the market & Academia decides something must change for its own =
greedy-like intentions.

What you believe is of course your own take, and it just so happens due to =
circumstance it seems that you reside in the 'painting is dead' camp. And i=
t is lucky for you (and me) that we have decided not to explore the activit=
y of painting and therefore are not branded, or stigmatized as second-rate =
citizens because of this. I personally feel a sense of regret that certain =
'arts' activities have been and are pushed aside for the sake of new practi=
ces, I also do not trust many people's motives to kill something of which i=
s not theirs to kill.

For I believe that art (the act of creating) is a personal choice and when =
someone is told that they are doing something wrong or not relevant, especi=
ally when it is something that they enjoy, and people say 'ah, that's dead,=
long gone'. I get goose pimples all over (almost). On who's terms is paint=
ing dead? I am not arguing that painting should be saved or anything like t=
hat but what I am questioning is people's urgency to kill a dream, or an in=
timate function that can bring beauty or a certain poetic reasoniong to som=
eone's life via a process of making art. To take that away by devaluing it =
via terms of art domination over creative choice I feel is wrong. All thoug=
h, there could be some positive outcomes of such things happening for paint=
ing. For me, if people just painted outside of the art arena, it would give=
it more credence, in fact more value. The Art arena is yet another social =
construction it seems to seperate the valid and the invalid. This is new, s=
o therefore better...

Those who have decided to for whatever reason to pursue or partake in such =
a so called, labeled 'dead thing' must of course come to terms with the fac=
t that the moving image, recent strategic shifts of net creativity and the =
academic, are holding the 'Vanguard reigns'. I do not feel comfortable with=
this 2-tier situation of market led & academic led control. This means tha=
t there is a type of thought control on what one must pursue as a creative =
individual or group. We must not forget that just because we have the privi=
lege or advantage to be seen as exploring 'cutting edge' work in the wester=
n hemisphere, does not mean that it is a valid or right right thing to be d=
oing.

I am not an anti capitalist in respect to it being an everyday function or =
in the very real sense of survival, and of course we all must eat. Yet I am=
not happy to be told what is good and what is bad by people who I do not k=
now or respect. This does not mean you of course. I mean higher up, the 'Th=
ought Police', those people who for some reason have convinced themselves t=
hat what they say must be- the be and end all. It's like having a parent te=
lling us 'You're too old for this now, or this is not appropriate'. And I a=
m not a child so I listen to my own heart in relation to what I believe and=
learn from real experience (outside thought police perameters) whether it =
may seem misguided or not. And on that premise I can gather 'embodied knowl=
edge' on a subject. Whether painting is dead is not the issue, it's much mo=
re to do with why people wish to say such about harsh things in the first p=
lace that I question.

I am very interested in the variants on code as art, but that does not mean=
that my eyes are closed from appreciating a message, a concept in a painti=
ng just because it is not conforming to a protocol. I know that I will not =
budge you on this one Eryk, and our ideas can sometimes clash. But I apprec=
iate where you are coming from conceptually and in respect of historical ev=
ents. I knid of agree with a lot of what you say but have a deep doubt to t=
rust the way things are panning out. So - I agree a lot, but in priciple fe=
el alarmed. I have yearning of a luddite, to smash up all this computer stu=
ff that I myself am using, yet enjoy the adventure of exploring new strateg=
ies at the same time. What a confused bunny I must be eh!

marc

I think "careerism" is a good catch all phrase for explaining away every =
aspect of the art world we don't like,
but in this case I have to disagree, and I'm disagreeing based on a posit=
ion of 1) I am not a careerist and
2) I believe painting is an obsolete art form.

Here are the reasons I give for 2) since position 1) is arguable dependin=
g on who you ask. I will make clear
that I fervently believe that _any_ form of expression is a valid art for=
m. Look at the Salvaggio-Museum if
you want money where my mouth is. I do not believe we even need to declar=
e an area of art an "art form" in
order to make it valid art. Yesterday, I was in an art supply store, and =
considered stealing the notebooks they
leave out for people to test pens. They were beautiful collaborative draw=
ings- squiggles, unicorns, calligraphy
and multitudes of colors and random phrases- but I got nervous because th=
e woman just told me my friend
had been fired and I didn't want to be the guy who went in there to steal=
used notebooks. But I digress [that's
really how you use the word "digress" by the way].

So, I want to say something: There is Art1 and there is Art2. Art1 [and t=
he numbers are arbitrary] are the
artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external expression of an id=
ea or emotion or concept; but also
deals specifically with beauty and aesthetics. This is the category I hav=
e dedicated the Salvaggio-Museum to,
the idea of every day artifacts and accidental manifestations of inhibite=
d creative energy.

Art2 is the academic side of art, fueled by innovative ideas fused with i=
nnovative techniques. This is the art
that most art museums are dedicated to and the stuff that most people pay=
for. This art is created on a
line from cave paintings to Eduardo Kac. But because it is on a line, the=
re is a need for this art to swim or
drown. It must always be absolutely modern if it is going to catch us in =
an unexpected way. Too often, Art2
is replaced by Art2a and Art2b; Art2a being a preoccupation with history =
and personal expression, that is,
people who create art solely for the purpose of expressing continuing con=
cepts, and Art2b consisting of
people solely interested in innovating technology for the sake of art, wi=
th the concept of personal, emotional
expression coming secondary to the "shock of the new." [Rhizome consists =
mainly of Art2b; it's only been
recently that I have accepted that this is not an entirely bad thing; jus=
t not my most preferable.] I'd much
prefer to see a union between Art2a and Art2b, which could lead us to Art=
3, which is what all of us are
waiting for. [Last metaphor would be to look at music and technology: You=
have the Art2b music of
Autechre; the Art2a of Annie Difranco, and the Art3 of say, Aphex Twin. N=
othing wrong with any of
them.]

Anyway; painting as Art1 is fine. But when painting declares that it is A=
rt2, Art2a, 2b or 3, we fall into
the concern that just maybe it isn't. It is an antique as far as innovati=
on is concerned and so therefore can't
be considered in the same world. And it shouldn't be. People who are insu=
lted by this concept of Art1 not
being Art2 need to figure out why Art2 is so important to them. The answe=
r, usually, is that Art2 carries
the "scene." It is where people get paid, it is where people say "Hey, yo=
u're a star!" The reason for this,
in my own opinion, anyway, is that Art1 is too embarrassed of its own sin=
cerity in an ironic world. Sincerity
is also an antique. But when the value judgements of Art2 are sought out =
for someone making Art1, it's
just like Billy bringing his Baking Soda Volcano to the NASA convention. =
It's the wrong scope. It's a fallacy
to assume that the larger the scale the more valid; which is why I can't =
understand why so many Art1's need
the validation of an Art2. You paint because you love to paint, okay. You=
paint to express ideas, fine; there's
nothing wrong with painting, poetry or good wine. But why anyone needs to=
assume that good wine is a kind
of television is beyond me. It's confusing a Pit Bull with a Bulldog. Bot=
h are Dogs, but they're both very
different kinds of dogs.

Cheers,
-e.

furtherfield wrote:

Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to di=
smiss one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is tha=
t it is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practice en=
ough by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the end ev=
eryone looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - consciou=
s glance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoa=
ts that can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of =
what is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certainly=
is not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be.=
All products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist=
strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is =
nothing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if=
one expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as painti=
ng do not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital, ins=
tallation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names=
, instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new language=
s, claiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past as =
dead, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idiom. =
That is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over humani=
ty, what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words...

marc

is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophica=
lly something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead ...........................................................=
...........................................................................=
.................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hello Judson,

I suppose the other question that Natalie posed was 'is it normal to turn i=
nto the person you always hated ?' I'd say yes in a sense, but for many rea=
sons. One could be that we can discover that our earlier presumptions were =
wrong and not accurate but the fear of change dictated our view at the time=
. Sometimes when we change, the process itself can feel like something has =
died inside. Yet we are renewed each day...

Marc

Hello Natalie,

I appreciate your question in relation to why people are so eager to di=
smiss one type of art/method to put another in its place. The answer is tha=
t it is political and careeer led - if one advertises their own practice en=
ough by promoting that activity as new, the best, better etc, in the end ev=
eryone looks in that direction like frightened sheep with a self - consciou=
s glance. In a system that is led by trend it is important to have scapegoa=
ts that can be cast in the realm of the past, that historical trash can of =
what is known as obsolete. It is about supply and demand - and it certainly=
is not about philosophical reasonong as you yourself might yearn it to be.=
All products must have an expirary date in the land of plenty, a modernist=
strategy in the cumfy misleading guise of postmodern ideoligies. There is =
nothing wrong with people creating their art work on their own terms but if=
one expects to be taken on as an equal when creating an art such as painti=
ng do not expect to be respected by those who rule the day via digital, ins=
tallation, code - for they are re-inventing the future with their own names=
, instigating the process of branding for all to see. Claiming new language=
s, claiming power, claiming a space in the future, discounting the past as =
dead, the future as alive because they are potentially part of that idiom. =
That is how things work and in a world that places the delusion over humani=
ty, what else can you expect? The function contradicts their words...

marc

is it normal to turn into the person you always hated ?

why do some people think a painting is a canvase and not philosophicall=
y something else

why can't everybody under stand potential

i am dead

I got a totally different take. (Much more personal than political) But t=
hat's one thing that makes this really cool. That we had a reaction at all,=
even though we are looking from very different angles. Work that has relev=
ance from varied approaches is so rare on the web.

why do people think paintings are someTHING at all? Things are interchang=
eable. Words/thoughts/histories are things and thus have NO particular valu=
e. Potential is a thing. What you did is gone now, it's just words. Concent=
rate not on the things but what you are DOING. Death is really not so detri=
mental if you just haven't died.

judson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

DISCUSSION

The September 11 X-Files


------=_NextPart_001_014B_01C20995.7AE329C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank

The September 11 X-Files
05/30/2002 @ 1:56pm

On March 25, during a Pacifica radio interview, Representative =
Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, said, "We know there were numerous wa=
rnings of the events to come on September 11.... What did this Administrati=
on know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else=
knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were ne=
edlessly murdered?" McKinney was not merely asking if there had been an int=
elligence failure. She was suggesting--though not asserting--that the US go=
vernment had foreknowledge of the specific attacks and either did not do en=
ough to prevent them or, much worse, permitted them to occur for some foul =
reason.

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=
=66

------=_NextPart_001_014B_01C20995.7AE329C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:014901c2098d$191ec1c0$0100a8c0@FURTHERFIELD>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=757 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top align=left width=557>
<P align=left>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=757 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top align=left width=557>
<P align=left>&nbsp;</P><LINK href="/factory/board/factory.=
css"
type=text/css rel=stylesheet>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="95%" border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV class=posthed>The September 11 X-Files</DIV>
<DIV class=posttime>05/30/2002 @ 1:56pm <BR><BR>
<P>On March 25, during a Pacifica radio interview, Representati=
ve
Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, said, "We know there were=

numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11.... Wha=
t did
this Administration know, and when did it know it about the eve=
nts
of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the
innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?" McKi=
nney
was not merely asking if there had been an intelligence failure=
. She
was suggesting--though not asserting--that the US government ha=
d
foreknowledge of the specific attacks and either did not do eno=
ugh
to prevent them or, much worse, permitted them to occur for som=
e
foul reason.<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=
=3&amp;pid=66">http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid==
3&amp;pid=66</A></P></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P><LINK
href="/factory/board/factory.css" type=text/css
rel=stylesheet></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<P>&nbsp;</P></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_001_014B_01C20995.7AE329C0--

DISCUSSION

Re: Cupcakes, signal, noise


Hello Patrick,

Isn't it much more to do with people's different needs and aspirations and
what they can get out of the rhizome list? Ok, the flavor may not be in
keeping with your taste, but does that make it a bad or a sub-standard
thing?

Your personal needs and professional interests have obviously changed in
time and your intentions are not the same as they were when you first joined
rhizome. Your career has changed and its demands ask for functions that may
dictate what you want from this list. I've seen many of your projects and
ideas and think that they are sincere, well thought out and pretty
stimulating in their conception and do consciously involve (without pseudo
cynicism) human interaction in a generous manner. I am happy to applaud your
work openly on this list because I do not feel that sharing such intimate
and human observations are wrong on here, although it does seem this type of
communication does not fit into your remit or need of intellectual stimuli.
Your choice, but may be other people on this list want to share the
interaction itself, isn't there value in that?

Colonization from NN has not been such an issue for a long time now. NN,
Integer is currently on the Syndicate list these days promoting their
program and the use of, where ever it takes them. What you have termed as
'noise' is a reflection of life and life most of the time is a very noisy
experience, not just an intellectual exchange. I agree with you if you are
asking for discussions to be more open and frequent in relation to exploring
ideas/projects. Yet that does happen, although not in the way that you
prefer may be. You obviously have a personal criteria that you feel is not
being fulfilled by this list and its users any more.

Bringing myself into the frame here - I would like to know who you consider
to be 'our more cranky colleagues'? And have I been placed into that scary
category? I would certainly feel offended, even disturbed if you thought I
deserved such a stigmatizing label. Especially when I have been very
respectful to you, and to all the people on the list, taking account
(whenever possible) of their reasoning's, in a mutual way. I feel that my
own intentions have been very clear, in all of my posts. Would you rather
that someone like myself did not post links to various interesting sites?
Not post (short) essays that I have written for people to view? Poems, prose
& textural wanderings? Not have me comment on other people's ideas and
issues such as the one you have just sent? Do you think that I have
contributed positively, or have I in your eyes merely been part of the
gradual and ignorant-led, dumbing down of this list?

I still believe in the idea of a community. I live in one, which is a
flourishing mix of many cultures in London UK, and using approximately 93
different languages. I personally value all of it, and yes I desire
intellectual challenge from within that community but have come to terms
with searching for it intuitively rather than expecting it. And yes, to be
honest I have found it not where I first expected it. Not in colleges &
institutions, but in the community amongst friends of whom are willing to be
open and share their feelings and perceptions without worry of ridicule if
they say something silly by mistake.

Luckily I have met plenty of people from various walks of life whom have
generously taught me new things just by them being themselves. Not
pretending or posturing or telling in the name of art-power. Sometimes
intellectually challenging but always happy to have a joke, not taking (our)
themselves too seriously, offering alternative perceptions that have and do
inform my views on life and many cultural and intellectual issues. This list
is a bit like that, I might not necessarily agree with all its content but I
certainly would not want it to be censored. Although it seems that Rachel
could possibly fulfill your wish, and Ivan's so it seems. I'm open to being
contradicted, unlike some people I do not think that I am right all of the
time, just some of the time. And of course life offers more frills than that
kind of transient hollow need.

I do not view you as an elitist pig, your projects say different. Yet I do
question your perception on what intelligence actually is. The sub context
declares an interpretation that seems narrow in its definition. I believe
that intelligence is a varied and wonderful thing. It can be a fluid and
playful occurrence, arriving in many different packages that might not be
immediately obvious. The list gives us the opportunity to not all talk the
same language. Therefore, if we are at all interested that is, it also gives
us the option of questioning our own assumptions via the process of list
interaction.

So I suppose my main question is; do you feel that people should abide via a
general protocol? I feel if that happens all the joy and spontaneous havoc
will be lost, which might precisely be what you are arguing for. It'll die
if an imposing official type of communication 'format' was put in place. The
appliance of knowledge does not necessarily need to be from a place of
art-based education-speak, taught by institutions. One of the attractions
for me about this list is that there are people who are not afraid of
defending/arguing about certain ideas that do not fit in to already accepted
structures. I also do not believe that the list has gone wrong, in fact it
has flourished because of the freedoms it presently enjoys. And no, that
freedom is not abused as much as some people would like to promote. Yes, it
gets lively on here sometimes, but what's wrong with having a heated
discussion? It happens elsewhere, why not on here?

A rich tapestry of learning that is not just art criticism. I think that
your criticism of certain individuals is not fair and cuts out what they
have offered me and others, it seems designed to belittle them, make them
seem small. I will not censor your opinion and I hope that you are not
trying to censor mine. If you do not think that I am being intellectually
stimulating enough for you - try me. Academia is child's play in comparison
to real learned, emotionally informed thought.

Having said all this, I do not wish to start a silly banter with you Patrick
because I value your contribution, and I have said this many times. And yes
I respect Joeseph, Curt and Max, let them shine in their own way, not yours.

marc garrett

> Ivan,
> What's going on is the crank du jour vis-a-vis rhizome raw. For years, we
> have our various 'fringes' that intentionally inject noise into the system
> for purposes of intellectual colonization (NN, Max, Josh, Joseph) and
> control of the conversation. Pretty simple tactic, and very effective.
>
> Of course, there are different interpretations of 1st Amendment rights on
> private listservs, from the more intellectually - centered form of
dicussion
> to the more vitriolic Springer-esque mode of discussion offered (in
degrees,
> Max's sin with me is sheer volume and occasional steel chair yelling
> matches) by our more cranky colleagues.
>
> I've given up on letting it get under my skin, or fighting it. That's why
> Rare is around, or will be again. Eventually in a few months, Joseph will
> tire or get a clue of the relative unimportance of this list in the larger
> scheme of things as he has stated, and realize (unless he's a total
> net.geek.crank) that to put such energy into a listserv for the purpose to
> see his name on a mailing is pretty onanistic.
>
> I've been here for 5-6 years, more or less. It's a good source for
> information, but the level of discussion has definitely gone down on the
> whole over the years, and those who are new to this either do not see this
> as important, do not understand this idea as they have not been here, or
> have other agendas that they wish to inscribe upon the Rhizome community.
>
> Therefore, your only real defense is to exercise some intellectual judo
and
> just not give them a foothold unless you want to do so. Subscribe to Rare
> when it comes if you don't like the intellectual equivalent of Springer.
>
> For the moment, McElroy is our resident Transsexual Nazi Eskimo who's
> cheating on her husband with a 57 Plymouth, although he has some
interesting
> ideas on occasion.
>
> Sorry if I sound condescending, which isn't the case. That involves
> personal feelings about the subject, which have been driven out of me long
> ago. More like jaded and wistful for good conversation. "Whose
> standards?", yes, I've heard that, too. And of course, I'm going to get
> pilloried as a know-it-all elitist pig, which happens each time I bring
this
> up, which is no big deal.
>
> What the ideologue does with the first amendment is analogous to what
> Jurassic Park did with genetics, or what industrialists do with
> deregulation.
>
>
> > > Personally, I can't wait till Rachel gets in gear and Rare returns and
> we
> > > can all have some decent moderated discussion.
>
> > You really are a scared little man aren't you? Are any of your posts
> about > anything besides censoring what someone else said?
>
>
>
> + troikas in baklava
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
>