Re: (TFT) Supporting TFT

[Jay Carlisle <maou.tsaou@gmail.com>]

Okay I keep spitting out these very long screeds here and that's ME saying
that so imagine what I'm heroically holding myself back from here
considering what I've demonstrated I'm quite capable of casually inflicting
and going with some quick notes and a couple of few quotes to try and evoke
the essence of the points I'm reaching for in forms much less verbose.

First off, Mr. Miller? Can Nick see the notes I'm trying to share with my
Kindle? If so I'll make my notations there, so far amounting to a couple of
minor editorial observations as I don't want to waste effort in something
I'm unsure of if he can't see it and will keep notes another way. It's an
interesting format in and of itself... Mr Dew, have you considered a DC
content port as a possibility? It might be somewhat simple though I've just
scratched the surface of the format... and what a graceful flame
extinguishing reply your post honored this group with above and beyond your
efforts that without doubt put your money where your mouth is. Lacking
mammon I can only offer indirect effort such as content in lieu of coin
technically qualifying for a Dark City grant is would seem but I'll take a
pass for now assuming such is the case as I've avoided trying to fit a mold
not meant for much introduction of nontraditional materials when I attempt
to rigorously fit the standard but as opposed to my glacial advance on
completed content I have completed a sculpted positive and formed potential
negative moulds already toward the suggested dragon. I'll post pics of such
shortly. and as to that insightful reply with the wisdom not to shoot the
messenger for expressing a opinion more objectively mainstream to a
attitude of a significant segment of this kind of contents audience in part
a reaction to the kind of business interests that have opposing goals to
those evidenced by Mr Dew. Tom Petty has a couple of quotes I think I may
have posted but post again mostly to shut me up about this part of it...

"You don't hear any more of, 'Hey, we did something creative and we turned
a profit, how about that?' Everywhere we look, we want to make the most
money possible. This is a dangerous, corrupt notion. That's where you see
the advent of programming on the radio, and radio research, all these silly
things. That has made pop music what it is today. Everything - morals,
truth - is all going out the window in favor of profit."

and...

"I think television's (cookie cutter, follow the marketable model not the
mediums potential shared qualities with mass market material being the
connection I think exists here) become a downright dangerous thing. It has
no moral barometer whatsoever. If you want to talk about something that is
all about money, just watch the television. It's damn dangerous. TV does
not care about you or what happens to you. It's downright bad for your
health now, and that's not a far-out concept. I think watching the TV news
is bad for you. It is bad for your physical health and your mental health.
The music business looks like, you know, innocent schoolboys compared to
the TV business. They care about nothing but profit."

Tom also mentions this...

"It's funny how the music industry is enraged about the Internet and the
way things are copied without being paid for. But you know why people steal
the music? Because they can't afford the music. I'm not condoning
downloading music for free. I don't think that's really fair, but I
understand it. If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve
a lot of the industry's problems."

This is pointing at the same thing David was getting to I think having
known the man for... good lord, grade school (did you realize the looking
glass was going to be a fun house mirror from this side dude? By the
pricking of my g.d. thumb indeed) and so probably take a different tone to
the reading than others and this has gone past the Napstering nay crying
from those who point to inflated priced and sold based theoretical damages
as some kind of objectively determined data point in public discourse while
privately pursuing policy resulting in a restricting of content long since
agreed to be released from private ownership such as freezing the public
domain such that no content at all will open until 2019 at the earliest,
which reads personally to me as potentially a small step from a postmortem
for such content and bear in mind me Droogie Brothers and Sisters than
while Monsanto and Dupont divide genetic ownership of the food we all
forgot how to grow mighty damn quick relatively speaking Henrietta "Lacks"
such legal fictions as protections against "Ello, we've come for your
liver" litigation and if you think that's to far can you think back when
The Gunners Dream was more easily associated with a concert pipe at the
laser show than a newspaper story about laser armed drones? In the face of
anti-consumer tactics that are ignored in "let them eat cake" responses
that portray "piracy" as the problem period are those who refuse to be
boxed into corporate controlled content designed to extract from us rather
than add to our community summed up pretty well for me in these couple of
thoughts;

"This is the time to be thoughtful, be expressive, be generous. Be 'taken
advantage of.' The channels exist now to give creativity away, at no cost,
to millions. Never mind if you make large sums of money along the way. If
you successfully seize attention, nothing is more likely. In a start-up
society, huge sums can fall on innocent parties, almost by accident. That
cannot be helped, so don't worry about it any more. Henceforth, artistic
integrity should be judged, not by ones classic bohemian seclusion from
satanic mills and the grasping bourgeoisie, but by what one creates and
gives away. That is the only scale of noncommercial integrity that makes
any sense now. b Bruce Sterling, Viridian Design Manifesto"

and...

"In a sense it's geek culture, it's what we learned from the Linux
community and the original shareware community, that here were people who
were doing the thing because they love doing it. What we have to realize is
that that geek mentality, that open source mentality, of "I want to just
learn the code because I love it" and make this thing better because I want
to see other people have more fun with it, can pervade any industry and any
enterprise. It requires though that you disconnect from the scarcity model
and start seeing yourself as an abundant source of innovative potential. b
Douglas Rushkoff, Interview on KQED (November 2006)"

I find the consideration to be more than simply pausing but personally feel
a responsibility not to pass off responsibility for how what I create might
manage through some Wiganed out multidimensional twist of M Theory
hypomagicaly collides the "brains" required to birth such somewincethen in
the multiverse such that the answer to why does "god" let bad things happen
to good people is in effect that he never bothered to consider such
constraints concerning himself rather with the underpinnings that he
rhetorically renounced as a result of such a rash outlook on the underlying
rational of a casual treatment of such a strong psychological issue with
the power of Make Believe play but today when I went to get the code for a
bonus game I had a preordered activation code that became active for today
I noticed the following;

>From the developers blurb;

Looking for a game with interwoven storylines, intriguing and richly-penned
characters, and an immersive atmosphere?
No violence, blood, gore or guns! Your only equipment is your smartphone,
your only weapon is your wits!
Choose your own path, make your own choices - scare yourself as much, or as
little, as you please... but only positive action, empathy and character
judgement will win the game!

And the first comment;

"OMG a game with no gore, blood or violence but is a supernatural based
story is just that, an interactive story. Not a game. Have fun losing your
$ to something pegged as a game that isn't a game by it's own description."

I close with a bit more of Toms wisdom as something to consider at least;

"Artists aren't necessarily business people. And they aren't necessarily
aware of all the things that go on in their names. Some just want to make
some music, but there is a lot of greed among artists as well. Whether or
not we know it, we are all to blame. I think it's time - starting with the
artist - to try to be a little more responsible and aware of what goes on
in our name."

and...

"I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that an artist has to take
some moral responsibility for what he or she is putting out there. And I
think a lot of these young kids are going to have to learn the hard way
before they realize that you can actually do some damage if you're being
careless or frivolous in what you're saying."

Looks like I won't get a set mould till sometime tomorrow but I'll put up
pics asap.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"