I agree for the most part with the points that Matt has argued, but I
wanted to address some specific comments from Professor Rehak.
I would argue that as an archaeologist it is imperative that we are able
to communicate with a very broad audience and exercise considerable media
savvy in the meantime. Trying to generalize for a fractious and
curmudgeonly discipline, we are tired of seeing the media get stories
about the past so outrageously wrong that we are teaching ourselves to
communicate through social media. We can't just leave it to the
journalists and bloggers, we have to be public intellectuals who can
explain our finds to anyone who cares to listen. In our program we have a
required public outreach component where we go into the public schools,
community centers, and even the local prisons to teach archaeology. We've
been extending this outreach onto the internet whenever possible, going
beyond just isolated webpages and into blogs, flickr, tumblr, twitter, you
name it.
While I'm sure I'm not the next Carl Sagan of the archaeological world, I
do try to engage with a public with stories about the complexity and
diversity of the past, rather than tell them a "dumbed down" metanarrative
that they often seem hungry to hear.
Sadly, I'm afraid we do have a cultural theory column in USA Today--it
just happens to be the latest, greatest evolutionary psychology
"break-through" that gives us yet another just-so story.
#bitteranthropologist
So, uh, hello Association of Internet Researchers. I probably should have
introduced myself before I stepped onto the soapbox, but better late than
never.
Cheers,
Colleen
--
Archaeology PhD Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley
http://middlesavagery.wordpress.com
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:19:38 -0500 (EST)
> From: Bob Rehak <brehak1(a)swarthmore.edu>
> To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] more fetishism
> Message-ID:
> <707943608.690931262791178316.JavaMail.root(a)zmmbox1.swarthmore.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I'll cast my vote for specialized and specific language whose priority is
> first and foremost to advance conversations within the discipline. I'd say
> I was for jargon, except that I find the term "jargon" similar to the term
> "weeds" -- it's in the eye of the beholder, and usually used in a rather
> hostile and passive-aggressive manner to police the discourse of those
> with whom we disagree.
>
> Debates about the degree and acceptability of specialized language suggest
> to me a larger question of how a given discipline and its practitioners
> wish to position themselves relative to a broader cultural context -- and
> hence a secondary issue in the production of knowledge. Perhaps it's a
> worry symptomatic of fields like cultural, media, and digital studies that
> intersect so centrally with popular culture. I wouldn't want my medical
> doctor, astrophysicist, or archeologist to streamline (or dumb down) their
> mode of thought and expression so that people without training can
> understand it; that kind of translation from minority to majority is one
> of the functions that bloggers and journalists provide.
>
> The problem, in other words, is not so much that academic speech is
> inscrutable outside its microscopically-targeted audience; it's that
> organs don't exist to translate that speech to a wider audience. I'm still
> holding out for a cultural theory column in USA Today!
>
> Bob Rehak
> Assistant Professor and Chair
> Film and Media Studies Program
> Swarthmore College
>
> ----- "Matthew Bernius" <mbernius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I think there's room for both types of
>> scholarship
>> (public and internal/academic). In my opinion, anthropology hasn't
>> done
>> enough public scholarship in recent years.Likewise, I think that there
>> is a
>> need (and a responsibility) for open publishing (making all text
>> available
>> to the general public) of all academic material, regardless of it's
>> intended
>> audience.
>>
>> That said, I also don't see a problem with using technical jargon if
>> it's
>> used properly. Especially if it's the language of the audience we
>> choose to
>> write for. The first task of a writer is to write for their audience
>> and in
>> doing so we acknowledge the mediating role of lanuage and writing
>> (regardless if it's textual or some other form).
>>
>> I'm not going to knock physical scientists for using jargon in their
>> writing
>> that I don't understand.Nor am I going to expect that I'll be able to
>> understand some of the more in depth research that they produce --
>> not
>> without significant study. Likewise, I'm not going to take Joyce to
>> task for
>> making *Ulysses *a slog to read.
>>
>> The problem with this question of terminology is that it becomes a
>> slippery
>> slope. At what point do we turn from terminology to critique phrasing?
>> How
>> many academic writers come to mind who might not use complex words,
>> but
>> instead use densely packed sentences with multiple ideas, often
>> leaving the
>> reader equally befuddled? Take the writing of Bruno Latour for
>> example. *Reassembling
>> the Social* (which I'm currently rereading) uses relatively
>> straightforward
>> words, but I think that the average reader could still argue that the
>> construction of the book is exceptionally "academicie" and difficult
>> to
>> read.
>>
>> Should we strive for clarity in our texts? Sure. But what exactly does
>> that
>> mean? And that isn't necessarily the same thing as reach, though the
>> two are
>> interrelated. As I see it, our goal should be to be as clear as
>> possible to
>> the audience that we intend to be speaking to in order to effectively
>> convey
>> the description that we are seeking to convey. And that influences
>> the
>> language that should be used.
>>
>> When I write for broader consumption, I may sprinkle some terms in
>> (always
>> with explanations), but I assume that my audience doesn't have the
>> same
>> exposure to that field and adjust my writing accordingly.
>>
>> All that said, to restate, I (me, myself, I) am committed to talking
>> to
>> audiences outside of anthropology and academia. And in doing so, I
>> work to
>> bring the level of jargon and clarity into harmony with my audiences
>> expectations and experiences.
>>
>> - Matt
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> Matthew Bernius
>> PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology, Cornell University (
>> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/anthro/)
>> Co-Director, Open Publishing Lab @ the Rochester Institute of
>> Technology (
>> http://opl.cias.rit.edu)
>> mBernius(a)gMail.com
>> http://www.waking-dream.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Jordan Lynn <jordanl(a)uga.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Barry,
>> > Why not write all papers with general consumption in mind? I've
>> worked
>> > through an entire graduate career loathing the fact that my work
>> will
>> > be lost to the relative obscurity of academia (if less than 2% of
>> the
>> > population has access to or can functionally understand a work, I
>> > consider it lost to obscurity). Why write in Latin when the masses
>> > speak English? Are we being elitist, by developing our own
>> language,
>> > or are we truly using the most efficient form of communication
>> > possible? Food for thought.
>> > -Jordan Lynn
>> > University of Georgia
>> > MoWerks Learning
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Matthew Bernius
>> <mbernius(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Barry Wellman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I hope no one uses ?self-glossing? except on their lips.
>> > > One problem is that anthropology needs to move beyond is the
>> unnecessary
>> > > use of insy-poo language.
>> > >
>> > > Mea Culpa. Though to be fair, there are a number of (European)
>> > Sociologists
>> > > who enjoy a good neologism, oops... I mean insy-poo language every
>> now
>> > and
>> > > then. I've been spending a bit too much time with them as of
>> late.
>> > >
>> > > BTW, in general I totally agree that we should work to avoid over
>> > > "academicizing" our writing (and I did have a feeling I was going
>> to get
>> > > some flack for "glossing"). In defense of glossing for a sec, at
>> least on
>> > > the linguistic anthro side, a lot of these terms have pretty
>> specific
>> > > meanings, and by glossing a gloss to gloss the gloss (sorry, I
>> was
>> > feeling a
>> > > bit Bourdieuian :-] ) in a paper, we're able to convey a complex
>> concept
>> > in
>> > > a single word (for those in the know). That said, if it's a paper
>> for
>> > > general consumption, then a different register/writing and
>> language style
>> > is
>> > > completely in order.
>> > >
>> > > - Matt
>> > >
>> > > -----------------------------
>> > > Matthew Bernius
>> > > PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology, Cornell University (
>> > > http://www.arts.cornell.edu/anthro/)
>> > > Co-Director, Open Publishing Lab @ the Rochester Institute of
>> Technology
>> > (
>> > > http://opl.cias.rit.edu)
>> > > mBernius(a)gMail.com
>> > > http://www.waking-dream.com
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
>> http://aoir.org
>> > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>> > >
>> > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> > > http://www.aoir.org/
>> > >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
>> http://aoir.org
>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
(have you ever noticed that US sportscasters have killed adverbs?)
Thanks to Matthew and Jordan for taking my writing comments in good humor.
And just to finish this little meme (sic) off, I had a revelation in the
early 1980s about the need to write as clearly as possible. I took a
course from the late Carolyn Mullins. There's a professional field called
"Technical Writing" that emphasizes clear communication. I'm not going to
go into the details, but my first pass on the subject is a paper on
writing for the social sciences that's on my website under "Methods".
My own feeling is that you can usually say what you want to in broadly
understandable terms, but if you can't, then don't dumb it down.
FWIW, I'm writing a Trade Book now (hopefully smart) with Lee Rainie (Pew
Internet head), that I hope many of you will want to read -- when we
eventually finish it for MIT Press.
And FWIW2, my PhD was in Social Relations, a now-defunct program at
Harvard that included Social Anthro, Social/Clinical Psych and Sociology.
Fortunately, I didn't try to copy Talcott Parsons' writing style, but my
mentor, Chuck Tilly.
Happy New Year to all,
Barry Wellman
_______________________________________________________________________
S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director
Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388
University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963
Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php
_______________________________________________________________________
Colleagues/
For those who still doubt that The Future is Mobile >>>
/Gerry
December 2009
Our global technology and telecom analysts set out to do a deep dive
into the rapidly changing mobile Internet market. We wanted to create
a data-rich, theme-based framework for thinking about how the market
may develop. We intend to expand and edit the framework as the market
evolves. A lot has changed since we published “The Internet Report” in
1995 on the web.
We decided to create The Mobile Internet Report largely in PowerPoint
and publish it on the web, expecting that bits and pieces of it will
be cut / pasted / redistributed and debated / dismissed / lauded. Our
goal is to get our thoughts and data into the conversation about what
may be the biggest technology trend ever, one that may help make us
all more informed in ways that are unique to the web circa 2009, and
beyond.
We present our thoughts in three ways:
1) “The Mobile Internet Report Setup”– a 92-slide presentation that
excerpts highlights of the key themes from the report (This
presentation is also available in Simplified Chinese)
2) “The Mobile Internet Report Key Themes” – a 659-slide presentation
that drills down on thoughts covered in “The Mobile Internet Report”
[Not Available > Wrong Link > 12-23-09]
3) “The Mobile Internet Report” – a 424 page report which explores 8
major themes in depth and includes the two aforementioned slide
presentations + related overview text
Also Available By Individual Themes >
Overview / Mobile Internet Report Setup
Key Theme 1: Wealth Creation / Destruction Material in New Computing Cycles
Key Theme 2: Mobile Ramping Faster than Desktop Internet Did and Will
Be Bigger Than Most Think
Key Theme 3: Apple Leading in Mobile Innovation + Impact, for Now
Key Theme 4: Game-Changing Communications / Commerce Platforms (Social
Networking + Mobile) Emerging Very Rapidly
Key Theme 5: Growth / Monetization Roadmaps from Japan + Desktop Internet
Key Theme 6: Massive Data Growth Driving Carrier / Equipment Transitions
Key Theme 7: Compelling Opportunities in Emerging Markets
Key Theme 8: Regulators Can Help Advance / Slow Mobile Internet Evolution
Our key takeaways are:
Material wealth creation / destruction should surpass earlier
computing cycles. The mobile Internet cycle, the 5th cycle in 50
years, is just starting. Winners in each cycle often create more
market capitalization than in the last. New winners emerge, some
incumbents survive – or thrive – while many past winners falter.
The mobile Internet is ramping faster than desktop Internet did, and
we believe more users may connect to the Internet via mobile devices
than desktop PCs within 5 years.
Five IP-based products / services are growing / converging and
providing the underpinnings for dramatic growth in mobile Internet
usage – 3G adoption + social networking + video + VoIP + impressive
mobile devices.
Apple + Facebook platforms serving to raise the bar for how users
connect / communicate – their respective ramps in user and developer
engagement may be unprecedented.
Decade-plus Internet usage / monetization ramps for mobile Internet in
Japan plus desktop Internet in developed markets provide roadmaps for
global ramp and monetization.
Massive mobile data growth is driving transitions for carriers and
equipment providers.
Emerging markets have material potential for mobile Internet user
growth. Low pnetration of fixed-line telephone and already vibrant
mobile value-added services mean that for many EM users and SMEs, the
Internet will be mobile.
Links to aformentioned sources available from
[ http://tinyurl.com/yg8fvpq ]
!!! Thanks To / Gary Price / ResourceShelf / For The HeadsUp !!!
Regards,
/Gerry
Gerry McKiernan
Associate Professor
Science and Technology Librarian
Iowa State University Library
Ames IA 50011
Follow Me On Twitter > http://twitter.com/GMcKBlogs
"The Truth ?, You Can't Handle The Truth !" > "It's All A Battle Of Ideas ... ."
Hi all,
I had to drop out of a panel at RSA
(http://www.rsaconference.com/index.htm) which is in San Francisco
March 1-5. I am trying to find a substitute for myself, preferably an
academic with a background in social networking and/or youth
technology use.
The panel is on "lifehacking" and the challenges it poses to corporate
security. Namely: when 20somethings move into the workplace and are
used to using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, torrents, and so forth for
their daily routines, how do the workarounds that they implement
threaten the org? How can the org deal with this? The ideal person
would understand American youth technology use and/or social
networking, social media, and privacy concerns.
This is a technology industry conference aimed at security
professionals. There is a possibility of travel funding for grad
students.
Please email me offlist if you'd be a good fit for this and I will
introduce you to the panel organizers.
thanks,
Alice Marwick
alicetiara(a)gmail.com
Barry Wellman wrote:
I hope no one uses “self-glossing” except on their lips.
One problem is that anthropology needs to move beyond is the unnecessary
use of insy-poo language.
Mea Culpa. Though to be fair, there are a number of (European) Sociologists
who enjoy a good neologism, oops... I mean insy-poo language every now and
then. I've been spending a bit too much time with them as of late.
BTW, in general I totally agree that we should work to avoid over
"academicizing" our writing (and I did have a feeling I was going to get
some flack for "glossing"). In defense of glossing for a sec, at least on
the linguistic anthro side, a lot of these terms have pretty specific
meanings, and by glossing a gloss to gloss the gloss (sorry, I was feeling a
bit Bourdieuian :-] ) in a paper, we're able to convey a complex concept in
a single word (for those in the know). That said, if it's a paper for
general consumption, then a different register/writing and language style is
completely in order.
- Matt
-----------------------------
Matthew Bernius
PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology, Cornell University (
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/anthro/)
Co-Director, Open Publishing Lab @ the Rochester Institute of Technology (
http://opl.cias.rit.edu)
mBernius(a)gMail.com
http://www.waking-dream.com
Dear Colleagues,
You may be interested in this new collection:
porn. com: Making Sense of Online Pornography
Ed. Feona Attwood.
Digital Formations/Peter Lang
Pornography has often been central to debates about sex and about new media technologies as they emerge, and today debate is increasingly focused on online pornographies. This collection examines pornography’s significance as a focus of definition, debate and myth, its development as a mainstream entertainment industry, and the emergence of a new economy of Porn 2.0 and of new types of porn labor and professionalism. It looks at porn style behind the scenes of straight hardcore, in gay, lesbian, and queer pornographies, in shock sites, and in amateur erotica. It investigates the rise of the online porn fan community, the sex blogger, the erotic rate-me site and the visual cultures of swingers. Treating these developments as part of a broader set of economic and cultural transformations, the book argues that new porn practices reveal much about contemporary and competing views of sex and the self, the real and the body, culture and commerce.
Contents:
Introduction: Porn Studies: From Social Problem to Cultural Practice
Feona Attwood
Part One: Porn Practices
1 Online Obscenity and Myths of Freedom: Dangerous Images, Child Porn, and Neoliberalism
Stephen Maddison
2 Child Pornography: Classifications and Conceptualizations
Adam Stapleton
3 Debbie Does Dallas Again and Again: Pornography, Technology, and Market Innovation
David Slayden
4 Porn 2.0? Technology, Social Practice, and the New Online Porn Industry
Sharif Mowlabocus
5 Younger, paler, decidedly less straight: The New Porn Professionals
Feona Attwood
Part Two: Porn Styles
6 Behind the Scenes of Straight Pleasure
Sanna Härmä and Joakim Stolpe
7 Horrorporn/Pornhorror: The Problematic Communities and Contexts of Extreme Online Imagery
Steven Jones
8 Good Amateurs: Erotica Writing and Notions of Quality
Susanna Paasonen
9 Gay for Pay, Gay For(e)play: The Politics of Taxonomy and Authenticity in LGBTQ Online Porn
Jennifer Moorman
Part Three: Porn Cultures
10 Widening the Glory Hole: the Discourse of Online Porn Fandom
Simon Lindgren
11 The New World Dream and the Female Itch: Sex Blogging and Lolita Costume Play in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and ChinaKatrien Jacobs
12 How Do I Rate?: Web Sites and Gendered Erotic Looking Glasses
Dennis D. Waskul and Cheryl Radeloff
13 Beyond Key Parties and Wife Swapping: The Visual Culture of Online Swinging
Alison Rooke and Monica Moreno Figueroa
Conclusion: Toward the Study of Online Porn Cultures and Practices
Feona Attwood
Reviews:
porn. com presents an outstanding contribution to the emerging field of online porn studies, examining the intersection of online sociability and erotic content, and providing important insights about both.
Online fan cultures and a democratization of production have affected the porn industry as they have all sectors of the communication industry, but these new forms represent a diverse range of practices, values, and challenges that defy attempts at reductive description. The chapters of porn. com provide a tour of this new and rapidly changing erotic landscape, and a detailed analysis of the contexts in which these interactions take place.
The collection should be of interest not only to those who are engaged in porn studies, but to anyone who wants to understand the broad range of contexts in which online interaction takes place.
Alex Halavais, Quinnipiac University, Connecticut, US
The internet has become the key site of contemporary debates around the effects of pornography on communities and individuals. Anxieties are widespread about the impact of online porn on the sexualities and attitudes of young people, and on the capacity of paedophiles to establish networks for sharing images.
Feona Attwood's new edited collection is a timely addition to this debate, bringing together an impressive range of international scholars on porn studies to explore such themes as the production and consumption of online porn, the evolution of the industry and the content of sex blogging and amateur online erotica. This book will make a valuable contribution to an intensifying global debate.
Brian McNair, University of Strathclyde, UK
This anthology positions net porn at the throbbing centre of society. If you're ready for some uncensored scholarship on porn cultures in the digital age, this is the reader for you. Beyond good or evil, porn.com provides us with a broad overview of topics such as child pornography, the working conditions of porn professionals, Web 2.0 cultures, extreme imagery, image rating and insights into the online 'swinging' world. So let's praise the researchers and blast the moralists!
Geert Lovink, Dutch-Australian media theorist and net critic.
Also speaking as some who hopes to be an 'anthropologist' one day (though
I've often wondered when I can call myself that), I would concur with
Matthew.
Also, for some reason, 'anthropologist' always seems to carry a certain
cachet with it beyond the academic field. When I was working and looking for
work in a commercial setting (sales, marketing, customer service), I found
that saying that my first degree was in "Sociology and Anthropology" (which
were both part of my degree) always got a more positive response than just
saying "Sociology", which usually got a worried look, and occasionally a
question about my political leanings :)
I would usually follow up by saying that most marketing practice is based on
sociological theory (e.g. how people can be influenced in certain ways),
which sometimes helped.
Regards,
Julian
++++++++++
Blog: www.julianhopkins.net
Twitter: @julianhopkins
Skype: julhop
IM: jfprhopkins(a)hotmail.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:57:26 -0500
From: Matthew Bernius <mbernius(a)gmail.com>
To: air-l(a)aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Reputation and professional degrees
Message-ID:
<9693f9cc1001051357o39cefc0fm74a1fc05665d5cc3(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Liz <nwjerseyliz(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> But when I first started following people on Twitter, I did a bio search
> for those who describe themselves as an anthropologist or sociologist and
> was surprised how much these titles had been appropriated by people who,
as
> part of their job in marketing or media, try to make sense of why people
act
> as they do. "Technology anthropologist" is one title I've seen several
times
> by people working in social media.
>
Ingbert Floyd <ifloyd2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the values of the academic anthropologists, whether or
> not they have a degree, and the values of the people who are employed by
> corporations, are at times radically different, and that is the source of
> the tension, especially because the people on the corporate side who use
the
> label often make little effort to understand the academic use of the
label.
>
Speaking as an anthropologist (or at least one in the midst of
professionalization), what Ingbert writes is completely correct. It should
be noted that this goes far beyond simply what is meant by "ethnography."
What tends to tick anthropologists off is the reduction of anthropology to
ethnography.
<rant>
In fact, what makes these self-glossed anthropologists often a bit
problematic is their habit of reproducing (and dare I say fetishizing) the
very ideas and tropes that anthropologists have spent the last few decades
trying to move beyond.
The danger of any self appointed "professional" is that while they have the
"tools" (for example "ethnography", a form of study to which Anthropology
cannot and should not claim exclusivity), these individuals often miss the
context -- not just of the tools, but of the field itself. For the
non-professional anthropologist that usually means using terms like "native"
and (implied, if not specific) references to Malinowski and Mead.
Apologies for the rant. Anthropology tends to be one of the more abused
professions when it comes to people self glossing in the technical sphere.
</rant>
Ingbert, I'm really glad you singled out Dourish as a good example of how
people can appropriate tools like ethnography in a nuanced and very open
way. I'm a really big fan of his work.
- Matt
-----------------------------
Matthew Bernius
PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology, Cornell University (
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/anthro/)
Researcher At Large, Open Publishing Lab @ the Rochester Institute of
Technology (http://opl.cias.rit.edu)
mBernius(a)gMail.com
http://www.waking-dream.com
***** CSCW 2010 Early Registration *****
As a quick reminder, the early registration deadline for Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2010 is January 8 (this Friday). Registering early saves you $200 off the standard full registration price!
You can register right now at https://www.regonline.com/63369_700944F.
If you would like to book your hotel at the same time, visit http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/savrf?groupCode=acmacma&app=resvlink&… (discount code is "acmacma"), or phone +1 912 233-7722 (discount code is "CSCW")
Finally, the full advance program is now available at http://www.cscw2010.org/program/.
See you in Savannah,
-- CSCW 2010 Conference Committee
I think I'm gonna do a paper called
"Different Tropes for Different Folks"
it's 20 years after my "Different Strokes ..."
Just funnin'
Barry Wellman
_______________________________________________________________________
S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director
Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388
University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963
Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php
_______________________________________________________________________
I hope no one uses "self-glossing" except on their lips.
One problem is that anthropology needs to move beyond is the unnecessary
use of insy-poo language.
;-)
Head, the Society for the Abolition of Tropes and Self-Glosses
Barry Wellman
_______________________________________________________________________
S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology, FRSC NetLab Director
Department of Sociology 725 Spadina Avenue, Room 388
University of Toronto Toronto Canada M5S 2J4 twitter:barrywellman
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman fax:+1-416-978-3963
Updating history: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php
_______________________________________________________________________
