Re: RULES was Re: FramWorks, Obama, Satantango, politics, etc.

From: Steven Ball (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2008 - 03:10:06 PDT

my spam filter has very kindly and all by itself isolated this thread

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:14 AM, owen <email suppressed> wrote:
> watch it
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Jake B. wrote:
> Are you even reading the messages you're responding to? Fred has just made
> an excellent point (one of the few on this list within the last few days)
> and you're making a complete fool of yourself. This is getting ridiculous!
> Let's talk about movies!
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Cari Machet <email suppressed>
> To: email suppressed
> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2008 3:15:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RULES was Re: FramWorks, Obama, Satantango, politics, etc.
> hello
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Jonathan Walley <email suppressed> wrote:
>> Cari (and everyone),
>> The constitution and bill or rights protects us from the government. We're
>> talking about the rules of this list, which is not a government institution
>> (thank god). If "rules" sounds to "controlling," then maybe a better way to
>> think about it is in terms of expectations people have about then purpose of
>> this list, which was explicitly set forth by the people who created it. It
>> seems reasonable to expect that the conversations on this list are going to
>> be about experimental film and not other things, though of course there are
>> always grey areas, as others have rightfully pointed out.
> read what i wrote to fred and maybe you will get logic
> and understand more of the way real life actually works
> it is not compartmentalized in tinie little tight ass boxes organized to the
> death
>> You're right that if you don't like the posts on this list you can avoid
>> reading them, or read them and then ignore (not respond to) them. But this
>> list is a community of members with widely varying opinions, beliefs,
>> backgrounds, etc., and the list benefits from people expressing themselves,
>> INCLUDING about whether or not certain topics are appropriate for the list.
>> There is a distinction between voicing an opinion and controlling/censoring
>> someone, and you're conflating the two here. You can disagree with someone's
>> position, but immediately inflating people's complaints about political
>> content to the level of control, censorship, and oppression seems extreme,
>> especially when nobody on this list can control what anyone else writes.
> oh they try and
> i am not conflating them
> i just don't think it is productive for people to whine about crap
> when they could obviously just meander down the road
> and i hate when others are oppressive it sucks the life out of everyhting
> AND it is boring
>> Finally, I don't get the anti-academic sentiment. As an academic myself, I
>> know there are some bad professors out there. I'm sorry if you've had bad
>> experiences in academia, because as a teacher of both film studies and
>> production I aim to create precisely the opposite. But to equate academics
>> as a group with control, lack of inclusiveness, being boring, is unfair.
>> There have been some artists who held beliefs I'm sure you wouldn't like
>> (you mentioned the futurists in a recent post - they were fascists after
>> all), but I wouldn't generalize about all artists from those few. There are
>> plenty of academics on this list who keep things lively.
> you don't get it - right
> i see that
> academic does not mean 'school'
> how many times do i have to write that on this list???????
> here:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ac·a·dem·ic (ăk'ə-dĕm'ĭk)
> adj.
> Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher
> learning.
> Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or
> vocational.
> Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
> Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
> Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See synonyms
> at pedantic.
> Based on formal education.
> Formalistic or conventional.
> Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See
> synonyms at theoretical.
> Having no practical purpose or use.
> n.
> A member of an institution of higher learning.
> One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> umn some words in the english language have a broader scope than just one
> meaning
> what i meant was number 6 oh and number 4 oh and click on the link to
> 'pedantic' it applies nicely
> by the way i am somewhat a product of school - i have degrees and crap but i
> also have my own very own self
> and very own life - ya know what i mean?
> c
>> Jonathan
>> Jonathan Walley
>> Assistant Professor, Cinema Department
>> Denison University
>> Granville, Ohio 43023
>> On Sep 8, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
>>> you can make a post about green sox if you want as far as i am concerned
>>> there is a reason in the constitution of the united states
>>> written oh in the 1700's
>>> and amended to include the bill of rights later
>>> was inclusive of freedom of speech
>>> wonder why those crazy white guys would give a crap about that?
>>> the ones in power now seem to understand just how crazy they were
>>> believe it or not
>>> (as there are way too many boring - academic - repetitively rehashing old
>>> crap films in the supposed experimental film world)
>>> experimental film is an inclusive genre of art/film
>>> if you don't like the posts in a given subject use your civil rights to
>>> not read them
>>> control freakism is boring and lifeless
>>> unfortunately some people are interested in such things
>>> c
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM, James Cole <email suppressed>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "But surely 'rules' 'from above' are antithetical to experimental film."
>>>> Can I make a post about the Red Sox, then? Dustin Pedroia is really
>>>> swinging a big stick as of late.
>>>> I guess I don't really see how there can be any debate about whether or
>>>> not this is germane to the list. Does anyone here think Obama knows who
>>>> Joyce Wieland is?
>>>> I signed up for a list on the discussion of experimental film. In the
>>>> last few months, I've gotten that thing about joining some social networking
>>>> site, something asking me to send money to Nigeria, and now political
>>>> propaganda. Does any of this really wall under the category of
>>>> "subversive," Jack? I mean, hell, I wouldn't want to receive emails about
>>>> the new Coen Brothers movie, and I certainly didn't give out my email so I
>>>> could be subject to campaign material. Certainly I don't think any of the
>>>> people who "broke" the rules should be kicked off the list or put in jail or
>>>> anything (that would indeed be "absurd"); but a whole mess of people gave
>>>> out their private email addresses so they could receive discussion about
>>>> experimental film, not so they could get information about Democrats,
>>>> Republicans, Lyndon Larouche, etc. It would be nice if people were
>>>> respectful of that.
>>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Jack Sargeant <email suppressed> wrote:
>>>>> Rules?
>>>>> If we are going to follow rules (absurd) then surely "subversive"
>>>>> would
>>>>> cover at least some political statements.
>>>>> But surely 'rules' 'from above' are antithetical to experimental film.
>>>>> Jack
>>>>> > There are supposed to be rules about this list -
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Frameworks is "an international forum on experimental film,
>>>>> avant-garde
>>>>> > film, film as art, film as film, or film as visual poetry; film's
>>>>> > expressive qualities, aside from or in addition to its storytelling
>>>>> > capacity. Any genre of experimental film, such as film diary, found
>>>>> > footage, abstract, flicker, lyric, subversive, expanded, etc., can
>>>>> be
>>>>> > discussed, as well as those films which fall into the cracks between
>>>>> the
>>>>> > genres, or those not covered by other lists.
>>>>> >
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>>> __________________________________________________________________ For
>>>> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>> --
>>> cari machet
>>> nyc 347-610-5199
>>> AIM carismachet
>>> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
>>> __________________________________________________________________ For
>>> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> --
> cari machet
> nyc 347-610-5199
> AIM carismachet
> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
> __________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> __________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.