From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Aug 24 2006 - 10:11:38 PDT
On 8/21/06, Adam Trowbridge <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> > hmmn i don't know
> > i don't think that seeing a problem as too large for any one
> organization
> > or one person leads us to effective action
>
> What sort of action? Effective at what, for who?
lets put it this way if ghandi or mlk (and alot of artists)
thought the way u do
alot of crap would be in way worse a space than it is now so...
i don't really 'understand' ur confusion here
> and
> > i think it is an important activity
> > to be able to voice disagreement and raise questions
> > about anyone's activities
> > be that individual or group
>
> Voicing disagreement is a neutral activity that can be effective or
> ineffective, depending on the goal. In the case of the Tank
> criticism, I missed the intent. I didn't see any specific questions
> raised.
you say voicing disagreement is nuetral
just bcause u say that doesn't make it fact
all subversive activity disagrees w/ u
do u know nothing of political activity whatsoever?
(let alone alot of other activity)
just bcause there was no punctuation of a question mark
it doesn't mean a question was not raised
besides instead of just critisizing the critisizer
there is an option of being a power of example
and if ur really all that interested in the subject then...
at least know what is being pointed out to begin with
> i think getting muddled in superficial uses of "tone"
> >(whatever that means in written text)
>
> "style or manner of expression in speaking or writing <seemed wise to
> adopt a conciliatory tone>"
what i meant was
the word 'tone' is thrown out on the list as a judgement
meaning your form was "BAD"
when often the judger just is being offensive
- because the best defense is a good offence -
they are attacking and remaining general about it
it's not 'proper' argument bcause
it is subjective
one can just say your tone was whatever
and the other person can just say no it wasn't
meanwhile the problem at hand remains unsolved
it is a diversion tactic
(hay look over here)
rudimentary argumental tactics that are unhealthy
gets us no where
which is the whole idea of the judger - fr: where i sit
no growth - at all cost
> some people don't agree with the tanks funding activities
> > that is understandable
>
> I'm not sure I understood, or understand, what it was specifically
> about the Tank's call for submissions and the fee associated that
> people found disagreeable.
pay to play
get it?
c
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.