nettime maillist on Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:02:10 +0200 (MET DST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> the we of nettime

dear nettimers

appologies for the break. it took a while to check the technique..
this is quite a fat message - you can see it as a practical
answer to Jordan's last posting, following Geerts clear and
elegant reply.

it's a bit paradox, just in the moment we have to discuss a lot, 
the list is getting 'out of control'. there must be some
undercurrent streams which are popping up now in strange ways.
after the '5 year plan for nettime' Geert and me posted in January,
which was fullfilled until now, even if extremely ambitious, we
have now the problem how to deal and distribute the success of
nettime without breaking down under the needed restructuring of
reaching a new level of organisation which fits to the changed
needs. First, it would need a collaborative description of these
needs. it's partly just a question of scale, but there are 
many more questions.

to leave me one question here: what problems have nettime and in common?

Instead of theorizing i'd like to go to the level where
'i can do something for all of you' without hurting anyone too
much. a moment of silence isn't bad for reflection, the question
is still if we need moderation and how we decide about it. 
a basic problem of 'practical democracy'.

during the last weeks i got several mail concerning the
question of moderating nettime, basically expressing a
'clear yes' (ok, there was one 'better not') so, for the
next weeks we will go to the model which was already
tested last year and should work as an interim solution
until we have found something better. 

the two channel interim model: 
the nettime-l mailinglist 
(moderated - by Geert and me until now) and 
alt.nettime (unmoderated). both are subscribable.
see the how-to below.

If this becomes extremely difficult, or if many of
you are revolting, we just get back into the old mode
again, but i doubt that it will work for long. 
It is an experiment and it needs your participation
critique AND understanding.

how to deal with the interim solution:

A) alt.nettime: 
contains *all* mails from nettime-l plus *all* replies. 
there is (almost) no traffic limit. the best way
to use this is via a newsreader: zero scarcity!

  news:// or 
  news:// or ...

by mail: (temporary)

subscribe to the newsgroup:
  send mail to
  subscribe nettime-t Your Name <your adress>
  into the msg body

B) nettime-l:
  like before, but with more editing/moderation.
  post reports, essays, manifestoes, lectures..
  expect some filtered mails appearing at the newsgroup
  and more pauses between sended text-packets. 
  also see >some questions< below.

a special case: announcements
one suggestion was to set up an own mailinglist for mail-flyers,
(nettime-annouce) which sends out weekly digests. anyone likes to
help with this? it could easily grow and would then need an own
moderator. before announcements will get compiled into a digest
by hand, and if urgent send out immediatly. someone has then
to decide which announcements are out of context (private CVs)
or spam (commercials). with the double mail from Hotwired
lately i wasn't very sure. i would help a lot and add to the
quality of nettime if someone else would like to do this 

some questions:
* how to get to know 'who are we, me, you and the rest of us': 
  subjectivation and indentification is still a burden, nettime
  in a whole did not count too much on it, let's keep it this way.
  what colour do you have? who is representing your desires?
* how to get nettime more 'radical democratic' without destroying it?
* how to find, discuss and build up new technical solutions which loose
  the limited and inherently feudalist model of the majordomo behind? 
* how to program and design social interfaces and free groupware before
  nettime has to adapt to given proprietary and closed software standards?
* how to keep or put nettime in the hand of the community instead of
  creating distrust, envy, discordia and a potential abuse of power.
* how to keep up the ongoing and still working 'gift economy' of 
  pre- and re-publishing without getting in trouble. 
* how to let nettime not become a slow discoursive battleship under
  one central command-and-control-structure. 
* how to add more critical questions without getting lost in
  a self-destructive nettime criticism. 
* how to avoid the creating of splinter groups AND a forced unified
  will under some unwritten dogmata OR a aporia of noise?
* how to continue this experiment with this extraordinary group
  of mindful people to still let surprises and conflicts happen,
  but also work on a continuity and effectivity in the discourse
  (on and of the net).
* how to apply technology to enhance and specify the social
  functionality without loosing coherence and the productive
  aspects of a working economy of gifts? (is an inner-circle, 
  a group of the oldest nettimers viable, or do we need more
  'political apperatus', voting, formal debate... and: how
  to distribute tasks+responsibilty if there is 'no money
  in sight'? do we all have to become electronic monks?)
* what is a moderator, what are his/her tasks, what are the
  responsiblities? is there a way to collectify, enhance or 
  distribute the task of moderation without adding more chaos
  and paranoia. 

-- hope these questions are not too compromising, any
   criticism and commentary is welcome, whatever comes
   in your mind, post it and it will get digested and
   reposted here. --- 

2. next practical projects (new work to be done..):

A) the nettime offline archive:
 as announced long time before, there is a chance now 
 to put the complete nettime archive+zkp1,2,3,4 on a cdrom.
 (plain ascii nettime archive from June 1995 to September 1997.
 3.1/2 inch disc) it will get payed by ars electronica and
 distributed trough their channels. (le parasite) it will
 remain public domain for non-commercial use. any suggestion
 for the cover and the database design and a cool copyright
 disclaimer are welcome. this weekend a text will follow where
 every author will get asked for permission. the print run
 will be around 1000. We try to find a way to make an quick
 & easy shipping for subribers possible. 

ZKP4, and the world
 same counts for the zkp4 which will be soon available
 trough the v2 archive in  Rotterdam, thanks! Ljudmila still
 sits on ca. 5000 copies. Here in Kassel we will probably 
 will be able to run empty. We sucessfully used the dX postal
 service (thanks!) and all the authors should now have their
 private copy. everything else needs extra funding. IF YOU out
 there like to redistribute ZKP4 (find )
 in Australia, Asia or Amerika please go in contact with us.
 We will try to ship as many as possible copies to Rotterdam
 where there is a big harbour.. (You might re-sell the copies
 for the shipping costs.)

B) the book also called the nettime bible:
a team of some highly engaged nettime editors will meet
in Kassel during Sept., this group was growing not at least
through the meeting in Ljubljana. we will try to make the 
process as transparent as possible without playing 'parliament'.
there will be a way for every serious nettimer to intervene. 
we'll work on a raw version of a table of contents sorting and
selecting the textes and locate them around 'several planes'. 
Someone mentioned a comic's section, more graphix etc. It is 
yet completly unclear who will do this. The first manuscript
may get printed soon for common comments. Mieg van Eden at is currently working on a annotation solution, 
this will make Paraphernalia (Frank Hartmann) possible
and introduces dialogue into a more discoursive text form.

C) a better place for the nettime-techies:
There is also the idea about setting up the virtual
domain, Walter van de Cruisen who soon opens a
web-multiuser-irc-moo at ZKM will redesign the ZKP-site
and downgrades to HTTP1.O. It was long planned to start
a technical mini-mailinglist on the software-side
of nettime. the collaborative interfaces, publishing tools, 
e-cash-machines, profile-data-bases, object oriented data
heavens, indulgent agents, chat, net-phone, and psychic
applets, GNU groupware, nettime-linux, and possible contributions
to the content liberation front may get discussed here. Let's
bring some theory and practise into a result (or at least some
cool plans). if you want to add, your competence, time, brain...
please write at this moment to or

processing more diversification 
(as discussed in Ljubljana):

(ex-east)european issues theoretical and mainly practical,
specially if media-art related should go now to the V2East list := Moderator is Andreas Broeckmann <> 
who waits for your mail. it's growing and the output of and after
the meeting in Kassel is amazing, big future. it is obviously
a list with very pragmatic not to say infrastructural goals and
it works(?) perfectly as an example of synergetic coexistence in 
the nettime neighborhood.

very cyberfeminist issues get discussed in
moderators:,, and Connie Sollfrank
<100136.14@CompuServe.COM> i heard its very productive and vivid.
please have a look at Faith Wilders article posted here on nettime
and expect an surprising autumn.

other friendly neighbors:
Rewired, Rhizome, Telepolis, Ctheory, Mute, Meme, E-minds, Well, RRE, 
Enode, The Obvious, Netly News and many more (unsorted). who likes to 
administrate a list of cross-links? it will go onto the site and
would need some gardening from time to time. 

ok i don't want to bother you with mroe sermons. it would be great
if nettime would get back into the good groove. tell us what you think.


Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 23:20:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Tapio Makela <>
Subject: Suggestion for Nettime...
Dear Pit & other Nettimers,

Being aware that no unified "we" is neither possible nor desirable, "we"
cannot be a starting point for a constructive discussion in an open
list such as Nettime. "We" refers to an understanding of a common ground
or an identity somehow negotiated or represented in Nettime. For me, at
least, Nettime is not about belonging to a group, but rather voluntarily
participating into a flow of writing, discussions, info bits, and
nonsense. Hence "us" may merely refer to those on the list without further
commitments in terms of one's identity.

What surprises me on this list is also a partial closed-mindedness about
different positions from which critical perspectives can arise. Perhaps
for many artists and scholars in a grant based understanding of
independent positionings it is difficult to accept that their
economical independence is that only in relation to a private sector. What
would that signify?

Any of "us" working with new media or any processes that are embedded in
technological change, a connectedness to small and also international
enterprises is there. I would say that more people on this list are more
keen to pinpoint the connections of VR to military industry than their own
connectedness to commonplace media industry. State & Art grants are
connected to art industry with its own games of power.

What I am getting at (to put it short since time is limited tonight and my
flu is bugging me off the keyboard) is that polarization of private and
public capital in terms of political or critical standpoints is not
relevant. At the same time I want to stress, that this remark does not try
to argue against public funding, only the (perhaps neomarxist undertoned)
tendency to make that polarity a political gauge.

Situations for private and public funding certainly have different
political ties in each culture. Here in Finland I, as well as many other
colleagues, are getting extremely tired, angry, and disappointed of the
public cultural funding due to its negativity towards youth & change. Art
industry and public funding here are a close marriage, and the space for
critical activity therein almost impossible. Hence, the possibility to
create independence through other than public sources of funding for
critical activities is extremely interesting at the moment.

If, through using the innovative cultural and media know how and "our"
international networks, it is possible to create such economical
enterprises, how could that somehow deteriorate the position of critique?
Or is the fact that someone or some group of individuals can generate such
a source of economical self support considered as threatening among those
who are dependent on it not existing?

Supporting the privately generated funding as the only alternative is
equally embedded in arhcaic (very current) politics, neo liberalism. Mixed
media, mixed capitals, mixed identities is the state of affairs
independent of Nettime and any thoughts exressed within.

I am not interested in discussing with people who want to attack this
position: there is nothing there for me to defend. It is not a position of
"my subjectivity"  - - only a point of view about some very central issues
around "Hybrid Media, Hybrid Capital".

If there are others interested in a interdisclipinary analysis of this
subject matter, I would like to invite you to do a net publication with me
for next year. I will also coordinate a conference next year autumn in
Lapland with Hybrid media and capital as a central theme.

When both media and capital are seen as hybrids of social, cultural,
economical and political layers, no single layer can exist in total
isolation from one another. This leads towards a more responsible idea of
business, but also a more socially and economically connected "art". For
me, no matter in which realm I move, being critical is being political in
each realm through texts, acts and interaction.

To go briefly back to the idea of "us". Internet as an environment is seen
often as far too total, as if its importance was a determining factor of
how one performs as an "I". On Nettime, I think, many of the contributors
perform as writers, artists, poets, hackers, academics, media activists,
off-media activists, or through some other frame of reference.
Everyone is seen through their "Name" in the "From" -field, but what does
that signify? Like right now, the "I" who writes has still 37,7 degrees of
fever, does not use text editing but direct telnet due to something on my
web server, I sit inside the Attila Parasite, busy as usual, not enough
time to follow all the info bits on Nettime, especially now, ill, too much
to do... So being the very random partial "I" on Nettime, as one of the
very fragmentary random "us" there is really nothing else to decide about
besides how to keep this list as an innovative and constructive
environment for potential dialogue - - some of "us" may actually have
common interests.

Disagreeing on things is necessary, but labeling, info/anti-info
campaigns, insulting remarks are frustrating, conradictory to the above
aim. How to be critical and constructive at the same time without being
"personal" in the negative way, yet remaining "personal" in the many
positive fragmentary ways that this interface allows?

I would suggest, for this list, at least one thing. What about opening a
channel called, which would distribute announcements
about events, calls for participation, etc, but which would not include
debates? Then the nettime list would be left for discussion on issues,
texts and debates which have more depth than agreeing about whether 
1=3D1 or 1=3D0.

In Gordon Cook's case, I see a person who can never admit being wrong
(1=3D1). Paul Garrin, who in my mind is very genuinely attempting to create
a cultural-critical-economical media hybrid together with other people
interested in that approach, uses many arguments to say (1=3D1). But
reading G attacking PG and PG defending against G is unnecessary for
us to read.
But, I do want to read the Name.Space info from Nettime. What is the
solution? I would suggest, that on something like info.nettime there could
be a ban not to flame, an agreement to keep it cool. Since Nettime is a
stage of critical media of a sorts, there are many performeres who just
want to be there for textual narcissism. There seems to be too many of
them around. This is a problem in any public space. Does someone really
like mimics?

On the Flesh Factor AE list there is a discussion going on about how there
should be more "culture" in discussing "technology", and remarks about how
they are really not separate, but intertwined. Quite basic thing, I guess.
Surprisingly enough, this similar simplicity appears every now and then
when discussing media and society, culture and capital, private and
public, x and y, in and endless array. It seems like all the
poststructuralist, deconstructive and postmodern varying practices and
theories have gone down the drain, just like the past two decades had
vapourized in media haze. Could it be that "we" are witnessing a
deteriorating of critical discourse into media positivism, a discourse
where critical means "being there" and media is taken for being critical?

I hope that Nettime will prove the opposite (sic!).

back to drink some hot tea,

nice late summer from Helsinki,

Tapio Makela
from Digital Drive In (
and Parasite project with Attila, Rotterdam, going on (come see us after a few days)

[redirected, hope it's ok..]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:48:08 -0500
From: "David S. Bennahum" <>
Subject: Time to moderate nettime

Pit-- hello.  How are you?

A quick thing: I think you should begin moderating (or someone else)
nettime. The volume is up, the quality is down.  I was traveling last week,
and was overwhelmed with the nettime pissing contest.

This is totally normal for a list when it passes a certain number of

Perhaps you could bi-furcate into two lists: unmoderated & moderated.


[from Budapest]
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 01:40:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Steven Carlson <>
Subject: enough homework already ...

   > The following is a homework assignment for Cook and Byfield (and anyone
   > else who subscribes to their baseless mutterings):

Enough is enough.


I have followed your project with some degree of interest, but I
have to draw the line here. I strongly object to the arrogant tone of your

If you care at all for your project then I urge you to stop and cool down.
You're not likely to persuade people or win support if you address the list
in this fashion. And that's the point, isn't it? is technically
feasible, but in order to make it *real* you need to persuade people to use
it in significant numbers. Thus, depends on PR.

   > Instead of being the curmudgeons scowling in the corner waiting for and
   > opportunity to piss on everyone, try and do/say something constructive
   > for a change.

Is this constructive behavior? With all due respect, you're behaving like a
child, Paul, and this hardly adds credit to your cause. has so far won considerable support from the nettime crowd, in
particular Geert and Pit. You're not doing your cause any good at the
moment. I suggest that you change your tune and apologize.

Steven Carlson

[from NewYork]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:49:29 -0400
From: (MediaFilter)

Subject: CPSR Response to USDoC Notice of Inquiry on the Future of DNS

While reading the comments posted on the last day of the
USDoC's Notice of Inquiry on the Future of DNS, I came across
many echos of the issues that Name.Space has been
campaigning for since its beginning.

Go there and read the comments....  ATT's proposal has points
which support or even directly echo issues that Name.Space has
promoted and discussed (although there are some points that
Name.Space does not agree with).  ATT has visited Name.Space
many times, as evidenced by server logs.

Then I came across the comments from the CPSR (Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility) and it almost reads like the
"Name.Space Manifesto".  I should have hired them for my PR! :)

Although CPSR, in its statement to the USDoC,
does not specifically mention Name.Space as a single entity,
that Name.Space and CPSR largely and autonomously share
the same consensus, is clear.

How CPSR arrived at its recommendations is irrelevant.

Read on...


Paul Garrin

--------------------CPSR Comment Follows---------------------------

From: Glenn B. Manishin <>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 8/18/97 9:17am
Subject: CPSR Comments on Internet Domain Names


CC: "Glenn Manishin" <>

Before the




Washington, D.C. 20230

In the Matter of                     ) ) Request
for Comment on Registration  )       Docket No.
970613137-7137-01 and Administration of Internet
      ) Domain Names                         )



Aki Namioka, President Glenn B. Manishin Harry
Hochheiser Michael D. Specht Andy Oram Christine
A. Mailloux Computer Professionals for Social
Blumenfeld & Cohen - Technology Law Group
Responsibility <>
<> 1615 M Street,
N.W., Suite 700 P.O. Box 717 Washington, D.C.
20036 Palo Alto, CA 94302 202.955.6300
415.322.3778 Counsel for CPSR

Dated: August 18, 1997

The Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) <
home.html>, by their attorneys, submit these
comments in response to the Notice
released by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA)
<> soliciting public
input on the present and future systems for
registration and administration of Internet
domain names.


The current controversy over the Internet=D5s
Domain Name System (DNS) raises important
questions about how the Internet, as a
decentralized, global medium, should be
administered and governed. While much of the
Internet was invented and originally funded by
the US Department of Defense and the National
Science Foundation (NSF) <>,
and although its governing institutions were
initially established and sanctioned by the
American government, the Internet=D5s technical
standards and basic policies have in fact been
set by a number of ad hoc, consensus-based
consortia comprised of Internet service
providers, engineers and users. This system
worked for a long time because of the shared
goals and technical sophistication of the
Internet=D5s original academic-based user
community. See And How Shall the Net Be
Governed?, by David R. Johnson & David G. Post
< emdraft.html>.

But increasing commercialization and explosive
growth have begun to strain the consensus-driven
process of Internet administration. The strong
and widely publicized reactions of many
providers and users (and foreign governments)
against the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
developed by the Internet Ad Hoc Committee
(IAHC) <> for revisions to
Internet domain name registration and
administration <> show
that the stakes are high and that more open,
considered and perhaps formal mechanisms for
Internet self-governance -- and for evaluating
alternative DNS proposals -- are called for in
the present environment. In these comments, CPSR
focuses on proposals for reforming DNS with a
view toward maintaining open Internet
self-government, introducing competition into
Internet domain name administration, separating
DNS management from trademark protection, and
supporting the continued growth of the Internet
itself. (CPSR addresses each section of the NTIA
Notice, and as requested our comments in
Sections II-VI follow the organization of the

As discussed more fully below, CPSR -- a public
interest alliance of information technology
professionals and others concerned about the
impact of computer technology on society,
founded in 1981, with over 1,400 members and 22
chapters nationwide -- believes that DNS is too
important to the structure of the Internet for
DNS =D2reform=D3 to proceed in a hasty or
ill-conceived manner, particularly without
adequate input from consumers and other users of
the Internet. Whatever its merits, the IAHC
process was closed, rushed and unbalanced,
leading to a proposal that should not be
endorsed by the US government. CPSR commends
NTIA for commencing this open, thorough public
airing of DNS issues, and for its express
acknowledgment that DNS reform, like other
aspects of Internet governance, should remain a
matter for the Internet community itself, not
national or international government agencies.

CPSR proposes that changes to the current DNS
model must reflect the twin goals of maintaining
Internet self-governance, thus minimizing
government=D5s substantive role in Internet
administration, while avoiding the continuation
of de facto DNS monopolies in the increasingly
commercialized Internet. We also emphasize,
however, that there is no present =D2crisis=D3 in
DNS administration that requires hasty
implementation of any system for DNS reform,
including those proposed by IAHC, Network
Solutions, Inc. (NSI) <
papers/internet.html> and others. Unlike IAHC or
NSI, CPSR believes that the twin aims of
competitive Internet services and
non-governmental Internet administration can and
should be applied to the DNS system. A sensible
plan for DNS reform combines the better elements
of both the IAHC and NSI proposals, while
jettisoning others. In this light, CPSR proposes
the following principles for reform of the
Internet DNS system:

A. The Internet domain name registration process
should be opened to competition for all existing
and newly created generic top-level domains

1. Shared gTLDs should be administered by
competing registrars, with restrictions imposed
only based on any technical limitations.

2. No registrar (NSI or others) should enjoy a
proprietary interest or commercial "ownership"
of any gTLD, including ".com".

B. Domain registration should be separated from
trademark issues.

Registrars should not be involved in trademark
dispute resolution, but rather should refer all
trademark issues to appropriate national and
international judicial bodies.

C. The Internet's "root" server administration
responsibilities should be coordinated and
centralized in order to assure reliability and
scaleability of the Internet.

D. The DNS reform process and ongoing DNS
administration should be handled in an open,
balanced and non-governmental manner, with full
participation by consumers and small commercial
entities, in addition to trademark owners.

1. International quasi-governmental
organizations (ITU, WIPO, OECD, etc.) should
have no formal role in Internet governance or
domain name registration. The extensive new
bureaucracy for domain name management and
oversight proposed by IAHC, including a
Swiss-based Council of Registrars (CORE), a
Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
<> and a higher level
interim Policy Oversight Committee (iPOC), is
unnecessary and counterproductive.

2. National governments (Commerce, DOD, etc.)
have no necessary role in DNS administration
except for ISO 3166 TLDs (e.g., ".us," ".de,"
etc.) and maintaining fair, open and
competitively neutral Internet self-governance

3. The IAHC process was inconsistent with open
Internet self-governance and biased towards
trademark owners. With encouragement from NTIA,
the Internet Society (ISOC) should be required
to open up the process to permit full debate by
the global Internet community on DNS practices.
The absence of any "crisis" in domain name
resources allows for thoughtful and deliberate
consideration of DNS issues.

4. Hasty implementation of the IAHC approach
will continue to splinter the Internet community
and would unnecessarily involve international
quasi-governmental organizations in Internet
governance. The DNS reform process should be
slowed in order to permit achievement of a
consensus approach that all interest groups
(including Internet users/consumers) can
support. No "rush to reform" is necessary.

5. The US government should not endorse, and
should actively oppose, intervention by ITU and
WIPO in the DNS administration process. The
government should not attempt to unilaterally
dictate any specific domain name registration
process for gTLDs, which are global Internet

[good luck! to be continued... ]


Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:51:04 +0100
From: Patrice Riemens <>
Subject: a semi-open letter to Paul Garrin

semi-open letter, because nettime is a semi-closed mailing-list ;-) 

Dear Paul,

For something that looks like ages now, I have been following the saga on nettime. It is surely our longest lasting tele-novela
(tele for telenet, of course), and I must say, I thoroughly enjoy it, and
find it very informative. I also think nettime is and will remain the
right platform to project & discuss the issue as part of the
general internet politics, was it only since if it was not in nettime,
where would I be able to get all that information?

Now, the main visible (as opposed to substantial) characteristic of the saga as it evolves on nettime seems to be its volcanic quality,
whereby you play the role of some kind of very ill-humored Dante's Peak,
out to engulf all those who dissent with you in a fierce pyroclastic
storm. Like a seemingly increasing number of readers of this list, I think
the point has been reached where this approach damages rather than serves
your cause.

Over the last weeks you have - again - become more and more strident (and
in the process also a bit (c)rude), about people harbouring doubts about
any or all aspects of the project, something I feel is
everybody's good right. You also made (IMMO) the mistake of taking
criticism of for criticism of your own person and/or your bona
fides, whereupon you saw it fit to return the compliment. In so doing you
look and sound increasingly, excuse the dutch word, "verongelijkt" 
(something like "put against one's will in a situation of not being
right/believed".  Now Leibniz said that dutch was probably the best
language to write philosophy in (some home-work for Byfield, Cook &
Stahlman here...), so let me explain my point further.  There is another
dutch expression, which says that there is a big gap between "gelijk
hebben" (to be right) and "gelijk krijgen" (to be accepted as being
right). To me that seems to subsume your situation in the
issue.  I'd like to add: this is not a drama, and every one of us,
especially the somewhat maverick/marginal/mal-pensants type that
constitute this nettime "movement", is more or less constantly in this

Now I have always considered the project as a very good
initiative, and I continue to do so. (if you want to know why my name does
*not* appear on the petition: my browser/machine could not locate it!). I
have gladly, if very modestly, supported it, and I think it has many
merits, was it only to make a lot of racket among those who would wish to
take over the Internet without anybody noticing.  I do not buy everything
you say be it about commercial viability, or its support of
artists, or its technical feasibility in general, not only by what I am
able to judge by myself (in technical matters: next to nil), but also
because of the criticism I hear/read, all of which is not as totally
silly, biased, and incompetent as you choose to portray it.  But I need
not to agree with everything in order to think of in terms
'globally positive' (to borrow a phrase from good'ol French Communist
Party parlance...). And I think that would be the opinion of the majority
of the people on this list, but I fear that you are eating into, rather
than expanding that majority. 

So my modest advice to you Paul, with all due respect for your manifold
activities and initiatives (or rather: because of them), would be: chill
out! Cut the vindicative pronouncements about people disagreeing with you.
And of all the homework you assign other people (I fear to think what
might come my way!), do just one item yourself: #8 : smile!  As I know
you, you're very good at it.

With very best wishes and kind regards,


Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:28:34 -0400
From: Tilman Baumgaertel <>
Subject: Bibles

Geert wrote:

>>> By the way, there are several Bibles in the making now
(a quick, thick and dirty one and an academic American anthology). <<<

        Are we going to learn at one point what these "Bibles" contain?
I am an atheist, and wouldn't want to find my postings in anything called
"bible", especially without knowing about it. 

        I don't mind if the material from this list gets xeroxed
occasionally. But this summer the ZKP 4 reader seems to pop up on every
single event I go to. And if the postings from this list appear in academic
anthologies, it becomes an entirely different matter.

         I don't understand why every little posting form this list has to
be printed "quick and dirty" on paper to begin with, when there is a handy
online archive at the factory-server.
[general question: why doesn't the paperless office, book, academia, 
entertainment exist yet? general answer: we live still in a hybrid
media culture and that's what makes it interesting.]

        I don't even think that everything that goes over this list is
worth saving or publishing - just think of the embarrasing flame war
between Garrin and Cook last weekend. Would anybody want to see it in
print how two grown-up men tell each other not to pee in their pants?
[a bit more trust in the moderators?]

        Don't get me wrong: I highly appreciate the effort that you,
Geert and Pit, have put into setting up nettime and keep it running. And
I feel indebted to you for creating this context from which I personally
gained a lot. I met people I probably would have never met without nettime,
and established important relationships with some of them. I also made use
of nettime material for my work as journalist, and I tried to contribute to
the nettime context by posting some of my own work. 

        But now it looks like nettime is turning into a publishing house 
or a content generator for print publications. That's why I think that some
clarification of the issue of "bibles" (content, distribution of the 
"quick and dirty" one, etc) would be in place.
[don't hurry, like before: no profit will be made finally, and if then
it will get reinvested. let's continue to think about an 'author
collective' without becoming an institution or a company, networks of
trust. that there is
content with a certain value here, should be out of question, that the
moderators are not "running away with the server", too. 
whoever read until here, please comment on this and we will compile a
next digest. Q: What kind of publication you would imagine as the best
of all possible for nettime?? How it would look like? Where you will get it?]



#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime" in the msg body
#  URL:  contact: