this is meant to approach a subject matter for the abstract, not necessarily a character or tone.
† continue reading 30 minute abstract for pamphlet architecture

internet user: lol
internet user: What is your website?
ashleyworkgroup: www.sisyphean.com [and others]
internet user: Are they supposed to be that skinny?
ashleyworkgroup: who?
internet user: Your sites.
ashleyworkgroup: skinny?
internet user: Everything is on the left and a big empty on the next 60% of the page.
ashleyworkgroup: on which site? both of them have small splash pages, but the content pages are larger, no?
internet user: Sisyphean opens up but has errors
ashleyworkgroup: ?? what is your browser?
internet user: Have you seen my site?
ashleyworkgroup: i saw some in your sig; you had a few
ashleyworkgroup: i thought you had a couple, about guitars?
ashleyworkgroup: maybe i am mistaking you for the guy that has the beer links
internet user: I use to have a artisticly [sic] rendered bass guitar as my avatar and had posted some pics of me playing.
ashleyworkgroup: i remember the bass avatar; i think it is a cat now
ashleyworkgroup: ?
internet user: Yep, a very COOL cat.
ashleyworkgroup: i am curious about what kind of errors you see on sisyphean.com?
internet user: Maybe it is the image? http://www.sisyphean.com/ex_nihilo/
ashleyworkgroup: yes
ashleyworkgroup: we lost the header image somehow
internet user: lol
internet user: You artistic people.
internet user: lol

[mildly edited for brevity]

our host is pissing me off. we have had multiple hours of downtime for three consecutive weekends. who knows how many clients and how much creativity this has cost us. i am ready to break off a refund and move our site to a new host. this would be the third time we have made such a move. this would also move ftground.net, i believe. moving mt is a pain in the ass. we also want to upgrade to wp. we will need a sequence for the process. perhaps, we will set up wp on the new server, then see if we can import the mt entries, then move the site. maybe we will move the site, install wp, cease making posts/comments for a day, then transfer the entries from mt to wp, then spend weeks retooling the layout. is it best to do all the damage at once, or in increments? this is the last of a rambling string of sentences related by content, if not structure.

new work anyone?

john h trefry iv wrote:
“like i said, i have one such composition that could reside in a forum such as this, , we already have ‘texts’ right, hmm, are these things going to be initiated by ‘the wrk.grp’ or by ‘john’ or ‘ashley’ or ‘russell’, if they are pieces attributed to one of us maybe they are just accessed from our worker page, otherwise, /writings /compositions /ourtexts /features would seem applicable, would these be editable like our front page?”

your opening line contains the term ‘forum’, which, to me, is suggestive of your desires that this new section would be another place for dialogue, perhaps treating each paper as a mutable projekt or a sort of dialogue about dialogue. i feel that if the papers are going to have their origins in our personal interests^{case 1}, such as ‘ashley walks a lot and has noticed this’, or ‘john doesn’t like suvs’, then perhaps the papers should be closed elements – items that may instigate discussion, but are not products of it. i reckon that the features’ purpose is to make a statement of position to the masses, not necessarily to ‘work through some things’. in this case, the papers would not be made editable à la the front page. there could be, perhaps, a condition where one posts a paper, comments are made, and a new version of the paper is posted; in this case the authorship would be as open-ended as the desires of the original text allows – one author, no author, one author with comments cited.
another option^{case 2} would be a time when wrk.grp is asked to submit a paper or to include a statement with a competition entry or rfp. in this case, of course, the same document is tooled by multiple authors (as done clunkily during pentagon). for this, we could break out the wiki sections that are hiding on this site, which would allow constant work and citation of all changes. as far as the above ‘case 1′ is concerned, however, though i am a proponent of wiki, especially in the case when it draws from the entire internet as a knowledge base, i do not allow that it has the certainty or finality that would be in the features i envision. there’s a time to question, and there’s time enough for shoutin’.

regardless of how we treat the papers on the site, i don’t think we need a new posting area. i think the news is a suitable forum for discussing the features, as its history has covered site updates, queries on the future, and external miscellany. also, i don’t believe that the open- or closedness of the features and the place from which they are linked are mutually exclusive. i figure that there could be links to ‘john’s features’ as well as to ‘features, some by john’, without confusing the audience.

as far as the uri schema is concerned, i like ‘features’, as it makes it sound like wrk.grp has a journal – ‘journal’ defined as a magazine w/o ads, not as a diary[land].

also, i couldn’t find russell’s page; did you link it properly?

crash site, 2005. through the pines and acrid smoke our intrepid nephew discovers a puzzling array of remnants from a dismembered object strewn across the forest floor; considering he has never seen x-files and the dia never quarantines the area, what will he build?

the roadmap, one year later…
† continue reading the field of play