Re: <nettime> Nettime-bold is <bleep>

[cpaul <inc@fastmedia.net>]

On Wed, 28 May 2003 19:17:40 +0200
the nettime mod squad <nettime@bbs.thing.net> wrote:

> As an experiment, Nettime-bold was a failure, but a revealing one. First,
> there was very little interest in it. At its best, nettime-bold had about
> 130 subscribers, which, at the time, was 5% the subscribers nettime-l had.

I think these figures serve no useful purpose.

I switched to nettime-bold but soon found replies to threads
appearing that never made it to nettime-bold in the first place.

I posed the question several years ago, and got an explanation of
why it happened that way, but we didn't get much further than that.

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-bold-0104/msg00096.html

Sort of killed the whole point of being on the bold list for me,
so I gave up and went back to nettime-l.

I think an unmoderated version of nettime is a good idea -- I 
would join it, if it worked.  

I volunteered to help at the time, even met with a moderator to
discuss what we could do, but there seemed to be a major
resistance going on at the t op.



- cpaul

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net