Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (988) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Cash on the table


Hi Lee
I'm not prepared to play 'who gave what amount and
when' -I actually don't think it's that helpful.
I've given in the past ( listed as anon) and I've said
what I'm prepared to give in future - it's not a
matter thought of individual moralising but of
establishing a structure that maintains Rhizome and
access to Rhizome for those who don't have disposable
income.
On another note, I'm up for the idea of a CD -why not
a CD ROM though?, with people donating a work not on
the artbase - what a great opportunity to combine
fundraising with showing the enormous diversity of
work created by those involved in Rhizome.
(and I'm equally happy to cede my place on such a
project to someone better known and with more drawing
power)
Whatever is decided I'm quite happy to donate either
an original piece of music or an artwork
best
Michael

--- Lee Wells <leewells@bb19.net> wrote:
> Who has donated money in the last 24 hours.
> I just gave 11$, a minor amount for the years of
> enjoyment I've got out of
> Rhizome. I will continue to donate in the future.
>
> Cheers
> Lee
>
> on 10/25/02 7:41 PM, Michael Szpakowski at
> szpako@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Rhizome has been really important to me. I have
> > learned a lot from it plus I got a real sense of a
> > body of people with similar concerns ( *community*
> > always seems a tad twee) engaged in a sometimes
> vastly
> > irritating but always for me addictive dialogue
> about
> > art and it's relationship to the world.
> > In my ideal world of course it would be funded
> > generously but if it's not then I for one am
> certainly
> > willing to pay a fee to make sure I can get my
> fix.
> > I tend to agree with those who think access to the
> > artbase should be general and free( because it's
> our
> > calling card to the wider world). Everything else,
> in
> > this imperfect world, I would be happy to cough up
> > for.
> > I do take David's point however. It would be a
> tragedy
> > if a world which is happy to fund war but not art
> > forced those without spare cash whether in the USA
> or
> > Europe or elsewhere to quit the list and the site.
> > So I suggest that those of us who can afford it
> pay
> > double whatever rate is decided so that free
> > membership is available to anyone who declares (
> > privately) an inability to pay the membership fee
> and
> > that this system is instituted entirely on trust.
> A
> > sort of 'twinning' arrangement.
> > $15 (Pall's suggestion) doesn't strike me as an
> > unreasonable basic annual fee. Tonight I spent a
> fiver
> > ( =$7.50?) on a bottle of wine. I'd certainly be
> > comfortable with paying $30 p.a for something I
> value
> > a lot under the system I've described.
> > regards
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > --- David Goldschmidt <david@personify.tv> wrote:
> >> i'll pay. although i think the sliding scale
> should
> >> be based on where one
> >> lives. americans and west europeans should pay
> more
> >> while folks from less
> >> affluent regions should pay less (or free).
> >>
> >> david goldschmidt
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
> >> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:34 PM
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Membership fee?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Rhizomers:
> >>>
> >>> I am hoping to start a discussion here on Raw
> >> about Rhizome's financial
> >>> situation and a possible solution. This email is
> >> rather long, but I'd
> >>> appreciate it if you'd take the time to read it
> >> through, give it some
> >>> thought, and let me know what you think.
> >>>
> >>> First, some background information. It will cost
> >> about $400,000 to operate
> >>> Rhizome.org this year. Here's how we spend it:
> >> $6,000 on administrative
> >>> fees (mostly processing credit card gifts);
> >> $122,000 on operating expenses
> >>> (phone, rent, web hosting, office supplies,
> etc.);
> >> $177,000 on payroll
> >>> costs (salaries, health insurance, payroll
> taxes,
> >> etc.); $93,000 on
> >>> professional fees (writers, commissions,
> >> consultants, etc.). These numbers
> >>> may seem high to some of you, but we actually
> run
> >> a very lean, efficient
> >>> operation. It simply costs a lot of money to run
> a
> >> nonprofit organization
> >>> that offers as many programs to as many people
> as
> >> we do.
> >>>
> >>> In the past, most of our revenue has come from
> >> foundations, but foundation
> >>> support is shrinking. We had hoped to make up
> the
> >> difference through
> >> earned
> >>> income from web hosting and online education,
> but
> >> those services are
> >>> getting off to a slow start. We have also, as
> you
> >> surely know, tried
> >> asking
> >>> for voluntary contributions. But so far this
> year
> >> only about 1% of our
> >>> 19,000 members have made gifts.
> >>>
> >>> The Rhizome Board of Directors met for its
> >> quarterly meeting last Friday.
> >>> The main topic was how to solve our financial
> >> problems. I proposed putting
> >>> the organization into hibernation mode. This
> would
> >> entail shutting down
> >> the
> >>> office, laying off the staff and discontinuing
> >> most of our programs. We
> >>> would keep the web site up, ask the SuperUsers
> to
> >> continue to publish
> >>> texts, and keep Raw online. But everything else
> >> would stop: no more Digest
> >>> or Net Art News, no more commissions, no more
> >> events. We'd stop adding new
> >>> projects to the ArtBase, stop improving the web
> >> site (we have a long list
> >>> of bugs to fix and features to add) and stop
> >> planning new programs.
> >>>
> >>> The Board felt that hibernation would be a big
> >> mistake. Once we went into
> >>> hibernation, they argued, it would be very hard
> to
> >> re-emerge and rebuild
> >>> momentum. Foundations would lose confidence in
> us
> >> (not to mention the fact
> >>> that we wouldn't have anyone to write the
> grants).
> >> Most important, our
> >>> ability to fulfill our mission would be
> >> compromised.
> >>>
> >>> Then someone suggested charging a membership
> fee.
> >> This idea has been
> >>> proposed before, and I have always opposed it.
> >> Rhizome is for everyone, I
> >>> argued, not just for those who can afford it. I
> >> argued that we'd lose
> >>> thousands of members and that our community
> would
> >> become less diverse.
> >>>
> >>> Then we looked at the numbers. The gap between
> our
> >> expenses and what we
> >> can
> >>> raise from foundations, the government, earned
> >> income and other sources is
> >>> about $100,000. That's about $5 per member. If
> >> every member gave $5,
> >>> Rhizome would be financially stable. We could
> >> continue to grow and serve
> >>> the community.
> >>>
> >>> The board argued that we pay to subscribe to
> >> magazines, to enter museums
> >>> and to see performances. We pay to attend
> >> festivals and conferences. Why
> >>> shouldn't we pay for Rhizome? Because it's
> online?
> >>>
> >>> Consider this hypothetical scenario. Let's say
> we
> >> introduced a
> >>> sliding-scale membership fee starting at $11 per
> >> year with "thank you
> >>> gifts" (T-shirts, etc.) at higher levels. By
> >> paying $11 a year (or more if
>
=== message truncated ===

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

DISCUSSION

Re: Membership fee?


<Honor system? I don't think this makes sense. >
why?

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

DISCUSSION

Re: Membership fee?


Rhizome has been really important to me. I have
learned a lot from it plus I got a real sense of a
body of people with similar concerns ( *community*
always seems a tad twee) engaged in a sometimes vastly
irritating but always for me addictive dialogue about
art and it's relationship to the world.
In my ideal world of course it would be funded
generously but if it's not then I for one am certainly
willing to pay a fee to make sure I can get my fix.
I tend to agree with those who think access to the
artbase should be general and free( because it's our
calling card to the wider world). Everything else, in
this imperfect world, I would be happy to cough up
for.
I do take David's point however. It would be a tragedy
if a world which is happy to fund war but not art
forced those without spare cash whether in the USA or
Europe or elsewhere to quit the list and the site.
So I suggest that those of us who can afford it pay
double whatever rate is decided so that free
membership is available to anyone who declares (
privately) an inability to pay the membership fee and
that this system is instituted entirely on trust. A
sort of 'twinning' arrangement.
$15 (Pall's suggestion) doesn't strike me as an
unreasonable basic annual fee. Tonight I spent a fiver
( =$7.50?) on a bottle of wine. I'd certainly be
comfortable with paying $30 p.a for something I value
a lot under the system I've described.
regards
Michael

--- David Goldschmidt <david@personify.tv> wrote:
> i'll pay. although i think the sliding scale should
> be based on where one
> lives. americans and west europeans should pay more
> while folks from less
> affluent regions should pay less (or free).
>
> david goldschmidt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:34 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Membership fee?
>
>
> > Hi Rhizomers:
> >
> > I am hoping to start a discussion here on Raw
> about Rhizome's financial
> > situation and a possible solution. This email is
> rather long, but I'd
> > appreciate it if you'd take the time to read it
> through, give it some
> > thought, and let me know what you think.
> >
> > First, some background information. It will cost
> about $400,000 to operate
> > Rhizome.org this year. Here's how we spend it:
> $6,000 on administrative
> > fees (mostly processing credit card gifts);
> $122,000 on operating expenses
> > (phone, rent, web hosting, office supplies, etc.);
> $177,000 on payroll
> > costs (salaries, health insurance, payroll taxes,
> etc.); $93,000 on
> > professional fees (writers, commissions,
> consultants, etc.). These numbers
> > may seem high to some of you, but we actually run
> a very lean, efficient
> > operation. It simply costs a lot of money to run a
> nonprofit organization
> > that offers as many programs to as many people as
> we do.
> >
> > In the past, most of our revenue has come from
> foundations, but foundation
> > support is shrinking. We had hoped to make up the
> difference through
> earned
> > income from web hosting and online education, but
> those services are
> > getting off to a slow start. We have also, as you
> surely know, tried
> asking
> > for voluntary contributions. But so far this year
> only about 1% of our
> > 19,000 members have made gifts.
> >
> > The Rhizome Board of Directors met for its
> quarterly meeting last Friday.
> > The main topic was how to solve our financial
> problems. I proposed putting
> > the organization into hibernation mode. This would
> entail shutting down
> the
> > office, laying off the staff and discontinuing
> most of our programs. We
> > would keep the web site up, ask the SuperUsers to
> continue to publish
> > texts, and keep Raw online. But everything else
> would stop: no more Digest
> > or Net Art News, no more commissions, no more
> events. We'd stop adding new
> > projects to the ArtBase, stop improving the web
> site (we have a long list
> > of bugs to fix and features to add) and stop
> planning new programs.
> >
> > The Board felt that hibernation would be a big
> mistake. Once we went into
> > hibernation, they argued, it would be very hard to
> re-emerge and rebuild
> > momentum. Foundations would lose confidence in us
> (not to mention the fact
> > that we wouldn't have anyone to write the grants).
> Most important, our
> > ability to fulfill our mission would be
> compromised.
> >
> > Then someone suggested charging a membership fee.
> This idea has been
> > proposed before, and I have always opposed it.
> Rhizome is for everyone, I
> > argued, not just for those who can afford it. I
> argued that we'd lose
> > thousands of members and that our community would
> become less diverse.
> >
> > Then we looked at the numbers. The gap between our
> expenses and what we
> can
> > raise from foundations, the government, earned
> income and other sources is
> > about $100,000. That's about $5 per member. If
> every member gave $5,
> > Rhizome would be financially stable. We could
> continue to grow and serve
> > the community.
> >
> > The board argued that we pay to subscribe to
> magazines, to enter museums
> > and to see performances. We pay to attend
> festivals and conferences. Why
> > shouldn't we pay for Rhizome? Because it's online?
> >
> > Consider this hypothetical scenario. Let's say we
> introduced a
> > sliding-scale membership fee starting at $11 per
> year with "thank you
> > gifts" (T-shirts, etc.) at higher levels. By
> paying $11 a year (or more if
> > you could afford it), you get access to
> everything: Raw, Rare, Digest, Net
> > Art News, the Calendar, Opportunity Listings,
> ArtBase, Commissions, etc.
> > Maybe we'd keep Raw free. Maybe we'd give new
> memebers a free trial period
> > so they could check out the goods before they have
> to pay.
> >
> > Would you pay the fee?
> >
> > What do you think about the idea of a
> sliding-scale membership fee for
> > Rhizome.org? Good idea? Bad idea?
> >
> > Do you think it would be better to go into
> hibernation?
> >
> > I am eagerly awaiting your responses.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > + new media rugby
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/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.php
> >
>
> + new media rugby
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/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.php

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

DISCUSSION

death- terminally boring & a racist to boot.


I blocked the deeply tedious death some way back.
Unfortunately however I still occasionally have to
read his drivel second hand as I try to keep up with
with the many posts that are worth reading.
In general I'm in favour of free speech and would
still be unhappy for this list to be moderated.
I do wonder if there isn't a case however for the
collective blocking of the perpetrator of this sort of
racist shit.

<And in general, you're more
asleep than a bunch of
illiterate mexicans.>

michael

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Iraqi Agent of Influence on RHIZOME, Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Postcards from Iraq


Of course it's entirely possible to dispute the
statistics.
Its interesting to observe however the selective use
of the UN and it's bodies by those in favour of
sanctions/war: useful as a fig leaf for the defence of
US oil interests ,to be derided when one of those
bodies comes close to telling the truth about the
effect of sanctions.
What is indisputable though is that the following
exchange took place :

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million
children have died (as a
result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is
more children than died
in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price, we
think the price is worth it."

-- A CBS Sixty Minutes interview between Leslie Stahl
and U.S. Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright, on 12 May 1996

you'll notice no attempt to deny the figure of 500,000
given ( and this is 6 years ago).

When it comes down to it when I compare a country that
has actually used nuclear weapons twice,which
possesses over a thousand nuclear weapons on hundreds
of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which dropped
17,000,000 gallons of a chemical agent containing
dioxin on a peasant economy in South East asia, that
refuses to sign up to an international criminal court
and further refuses proper independent inspections of
it's own chemical and biological stockpiles, which has
intervened violently in the internal affairs of other
nations over 30 times in the last century, with a
nation that has been starved beck to the stone age by
sanctions and which even at the height of it's
military preparedness in the early nineties was unable
to effectively use it's "WMDs" to target Israel, a few
hundred kilometres away, it's clear to me which one
comprises the threat to world peace.
michael

Oh yes- and of course Hussein is a villain but which
nation armed and encouraged him as a counterweight to
Iran in the first Gulf War, even attempting to
suppress UN condemnation of his use of chemical
weapons against the Kurds ?

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com