From: jennifer fieber (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 14:48:04 PDT
Excuse me. If you're going to single out the word, "Dominate" was not the
word I should have chosen, but couldn't think of a better one. I meant
strictly that the percentage of posts that are coming from the same people
in a given thread as opposed to the whole listening body is high in my
mailbox. I didn't mean to imply a power struggle, or that I don't enjoy
hearing from the posters when I choose to tune in. I wish more people would
contribute. Sometimes though, an interesting item in a thread gets lost
while you sort through a flurry of reiterations and semantics arguments that
I feel we've heard before. It's hard to keep up and then it feels too many
messages have flown by to respond to what originally sparked the interest.
But now I'm contributing to the unnecessary asides. So since this is
supposed to be a film discussion group, I'd like to propose a discussion of
some contemporary work that probably most people here have seen--while we
wait for those Other WOrldly viewings. Peter Tscherkassky anyone? I've
got a problem with the work I'm afraid which I may expand upon later, but am
wondering how others feel first. Maybe I missed a previous discussion.
I would also be curious to know how many people are actually subscribing to
this list. Pip?
>From: konrad <email suppressed>
>Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>To: email suppressed
>Subject: whose list is it?
>Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:54:04 -0400
>
>>On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:02 PM, jennifer fieber wrote:
>>
>>>" It's nice to hear from people other than the handful who dominate here.
>>>"
>>
>>Why is that so? What's that domination about. Why are there so many
>>lurkers here?
>
>I'm kind of curious about this remark too. I post a lot here, does it mean
>i'm dominating someone because i'm talkative? No one is stopping anyone
>from writing to the list, as this recent festival of posting has shown.
>But 90% of the messages were not about film. They were about style,
>etiquette and hearsay. You say you speak for a lot of other lurkers
>against dominating listmembers, Anna complains that there's not enough
>"from the gut" talk about current films on the list, Keith wants detailed
>analyses.
>
>Well, it's up to you what the converation is around here, and if you lurk
>and aren't entertained enough by what people write, don't blame people
>who're trying to contribute. In Lili's case, i was really hoping that she
>would present her positive view of the film in more detail -- that's why i
>asked twice for it, not directing it at her, so as not to put her on the
>spot or discourage anyone else from writing. But very few people did speak
>for or about the film in depth, except thankfully the filmmaker herself,
>who took more of a risk than anyone to actually defend herself in this
>environment.
>
>Just like it is hard to speak up at Q&A's after screenings, it's not always
>easy to write a message out to a public forum, and often when you do
>there's no response anyway. But this list is not Lincoln Center. If you
>want to talk about something, go for it.
>
>
> konrad
>
>^Z
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.