Re: RAT Re: "Dancing Bear" posts

["Glen-Skip- Newell" <skipworthy@hotmail.com>]

David- First, Noone's 'on Nick's back' here. At least it wasn't my 
intention. Second, I don't quite see what the connection between Rat-Base 
and the Cassie Bernall myth-making machine. maybe you can help me with 
that...

NOW...Chris, you said-


>I personally _don't_ find "smoke and mirrors" here regarding RatBase.
>The website, as we know, was not enabled to electronically archive all
>posts to the mailing list until 1999.  That leaves a HUGE pile of old
>e-mail, articles, etc. that would require many hundreds of hours of
>volunteer labor to archive, especially in searchable form.  That's over
>and above the hundreds of hours already volunteered by the people who
>created the list and the website in the first place (as Skip was right to
>acknowledge).

...And I DID awknowledge, and do, and always will be thankful that it was 
done. that wasn't the point at all. The smoke and mirrors was a reference to 
the fact that although nick's reply was beautiful and impassioned and 
inspiring ( AS I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE HIS WORDS ARE), it didn't really 
answer the original issue, in fact it raised a whole other set of questions, 
which I asked. I apologize to nick if he felt like I was dissing him, but he 
HAD to know he might not go unanswered...

  >Faced with that backlog, and willing to volunteer still
>more time and labor to keep at least some of it alive on the site, they
>did the sensible thing -- they made a selection.  And they've been
>perfectly upfront about their selection being governed by the personal
>biases and priorities of the selectors.  Just as the various RAT
>conferences, like any party, are obviously planned with the biases and
>priorities of their hosts in mind.  RatBase is a party.  The hosts drew
>up their own guest list of ideas.  All are invited to mingle.  Is that
>really a "paradigm of dominance"?  Since when?

Understood and agreed. I was only turning the plough of debate- nick raised 
the issue of subverting paradigms and so forth- I only held up a mirror to 
prove his own point,as well as make one of my own. (ie; the choice of no 
choice is in itself a choice; anarchy can just as easily be a form of 
tyranny, especially when it's used as a reason for artistic deconstruction) 
( or perhaps I'm the only one who finds both tyranny and anarchy equally 
ridiculous...)

>
>At the NYC conference there was a large discussion of "The Electronic
>RAT," specifically dealing with these kinds of issues.  "All agreed,"
>says a journal entry posted on the site, that there can and should be a
>plurality of RAT websites and lists, each one free, as all of us are
>free, to define and prioritize the RAT experience as it wishes, the
>better to avoid any one slant becoming a kind of RAT Vatican.  To date
>there's still only one RAT website, simply because no one else has
>bothered to create any.  That's no one's fault -- certainly not the fault
>of the handful of people who _have_ donated the work and time and
>resources to build the site RATs and others currently enjoy (or don't).
>

Again, agreed. My issue was never that Erik and Nick weren't erudite. My 
issue was Nick's claim of the Ratbase being 'for the Rat's' and 'of the 
Rats', the assertion being that it was a representation of 'Rat' thought and 
history based on 'editorial choice'; he himself is , yse, very upfront that 
the editor made a choice and wound up quoting Erik and NIck primarily. I 
only asked what criteria was used.


>More to the point, I remember reading a series of posts from Gaby and
>Nick informing us of the renovations being done on the site and updating
>us on their progress.  I don't recall anyone rushing forward with offers
>to help them in any way.

I also remember those posts; I also remember sending notes to Nick and GAby 
offering my assistance several times. Having recieved no response, I assumed 
that no further assistance was needed, or perhaps mine was unwelcome. 
Nothing personal, I'm sure. But niether of us is in a position to say for 
sure...

 >Those updates included specific descriptions of
>their idea for the (current) "initial entry" of RatBase, which can also
>be found in the "Introduction" on the site.  Their reasons for designing
>it the way they did have been clearly spelled out several times,
>including (just now, in a post which is now archived on the site) the
>editorial biases which made Erik and Nick the most quoted.

I rememebr the posts about the 'initial version'( I may even have a copy of 
it). I Don't, offhand, recall the exlaination of biases you refer to; 
perhaps you could find it in the Ratbase and send it to me, since you seem 
to be so familiar with it ?



>  You want a
>better database?  Build one.  Don't expect "them" to hop to it; we're not
>their boss.

There's that reference to authority again. BTW, I never handed out any 
orders, or requests- I was only agreeing with someone else and expanding on 
the idea. That's kind of the root of the issue , though, isn't it ?

Love and Kisses-
Skip

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com