In a message dated 6/29/2002 1:13:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
invisible@cfl.rr.com writes:


> And also, just for the sheer versatility of the medium we are working with,
> it's
> stupid to say that someone in newmedia may reach Shakespeare proportions.

I like this thread, but who is invisible arguing against? Dave Goldschmidt?
I get lost without surnames. "If a stupid person would continue in their
stupidities, they would become wise."–W. Blake, law of excess or whatever.

Often them sans surnom are trolls, gosh those are goofy. Then you have to
guess to save the city. More details at my weblog for the new millennium at
http://maxherman.diaryland.com


> Shakespeare succeeded in becoming what he is today because he contributed
> something that we had not had before.


Or, he denied us something we had all along. Via Art. It is possible. It
has been done before. That's why they give me the big awards.


Nobody in newmedia could give us anything
>
> that we do not have.

Unusual how the grammar works like legos. I will speak for all newmedians
however to say yes I have given us already, via g2k, something we do not
have. Ironic or piss-discus? You be the judge.

Everything in NEWMEDIA is NEW and the only way to deviate
>
> from that is if they give us something OLD,



Well it sure is an "us and they" for you, so OK, but jeez.



and that would be taking a step
>
> back.

Linear progress isn't the issue anymore; it's considered well-nigh depleted.
Even Shakespeare prepped us for that angry peepee puppy to care for and love.
Backward-forward is now no line but a volumetric dynamic.
Tragedo-narratively exponential/asymptotal to the caviar.

There is no room for advancement in newmedia, and nobody will excel more
>
> than the other unless we are speaking in monetary terms. Newmedia is simply
> a
> means of channeling money into our pockets, whilst pretending the product
> of the
> work is an end in itself.

Oh bloggity my whole network is to prove the work is not an end in itself,
and how thence to save the world. Vid.
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/daily.html. Blig blag blug bloog.


>
> Shakespeare worked for the queen.

I have one simple word for you: Sir Paul McCartney. One common
error-adjustment is to say who worked for or against whom.


>
> I will never see the day when a newmedia artist works for the queen.

I never thought I'd never see the day.

Curiouser and curiouser,

Jon Herman
genius2000.net

++