Re: [-empyre-] this is Knotted & strangled ::

["][mez][" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>]

At 03:17 PM 1/05/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I agree with your point/s above/below. Your
> words/works aren't superfluous. Maybe I should withdraw my objections to
> seemingly obscurant verbosity, it is after all important to defend freedom
> of speech and freedom of expression.

..as is ur right 2 x.press them in the 1st place.


> Please don't be silent

just a quik x.ample of how my reply trajectory stutters.
1. i absorb an n.terestin post from [eg] christine.
2. i think "hmmm, if i reply 2 this it then projects the thread in2 that 
off-topic arena, not centric topic-wise."
3. then: "should i reply b/c? is the co[i]ntent digestible in terms of the 
list dynamic, x.pectations of topic adherence etc?"

i *hate* this forced pattern of assumptions, but its hardwired after being 
forced of mailing lists etc.......

[and makes me ubersad].

> If you're interested; I used to write code to produce imagery using the
> graphics character set in old dot matrix line printers like the Epson MX80.
> A kind of semi-generative ascii art. I could post a couple of pics on my
> site if you feel like a squiz. The code always looked kind of nice with all
> the data rows, you could almost see the image in it.

absolutely n.terested.

should we shift to [partial] point3 status [ie "should we take this b/c??"]

chunks,
mez




- pro][rating][.lucid.txt
-
-

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/txts
_
_men[iscus_heart] plucking via broken bag.ga[u]ges_