Repost: What does the word "netcanting" mean? (a long post)
in [Dentistry]
|
Prev: Best price!sale Nike Shox R5 Greedy Genius Sneakers Prada Sandals Lacoste Trainers Fendi bags from www.airjordanforsale.com
Next: free adult moves download
From: The Webby on 22 Aug 2008 00:09 I thought it might be worthwhile to repost this old and very lengthy post of mine for reasons that may or may not seem obvious, given the posts of someone else who is posting to smd with notices that he has "a book" to share. I can't act as though I have not also hoped that others would take time from their lives to consider "my book". My memories of some of the "old posters" to smd have faded; but, I do my best to remember those who participated here and especially those who were involved in discussions with me. Sincerely yours, Webby ~~~~~~~ Dec 1 2000 Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry Date: 2000/12/01 Subject: What does the word "netcanting" mean? (a long post) The inspiration for this post results from my reading of what others write. I hope if you have read this far, you will read to the final word. I also hope that you will be inspired to add comment upon this post. It is my opinion that Usenet is a place none of us can fully know. I think we're doing well if we begin to try to understand the power of this communication medium. It is the kind of place that most who visit for varying periods of time without ever thinking about its many mysteries. In that respect, it's like the "real world". It's like the real world's countless neighborhoods in countless places where people identify in one way or another with each other and for whom those on the outside may be perceived as different from themselves as somehow a potential threat to their security. With our automobiles and trains, we easily drive through or drive by many places where people live; some live there for their entire (long) lives never venturing more than 25 miles beyonds it's "borders". The people in those neighborhoods are ordinary people and for the most part they are like you and me. They get up sometime after sleeping for a period of time each day -- or so. They eat and take care of what needs to be done. They do their best to pay their bills. They love their family members and dear friends. They greet their neighbors and sometimes greet neighbors whose names they never come to know but are neighbors just the same. They read newspapers, magazines and books and listen to music of various genres. They watch television. They go to the movies once in awhile or rent movies from their neighborhood VHS/DVD libraries. They participate in social circles stemming from work, places of worship, or recreational activities. They send their children to neighborhood schools. They go to work somewhere. *And* in the course of the last five years or so, they have been getting onto the internet as a means of modern travel to far and distant places they would never otherwise visit. These ordinary people are connected to their society. How far the borders of their lives extend has become impossible to know. This newest means of going beyond our "real neighbornoods" has offered people with the financial and necessary technical skills a means to do something adventuresome. There exists an opportunity to see with a sense of physical safety aspects of the outside world without ever really going there and exposing themselves to various hazards of the journeys. They make friends there... or they think they make friends there. Where is "there"? What is "there"? Who is "there"? "Who" are we who go "there"? We are the outsiders who are now on the inside. But, where we are and who we are is far from clear. This new community, a new society, is beginning to be studied by those who study these kinds of social movements of society. In my case, I saw this social movement from as much an an artistic perspective as anything else. Certainly, I didn't see this "place" as a question and answer kind of a place. For me the questions developed more rather than less depth. I saw something happening that was in need of interpretation. I saw that the netcanters were everyone. We each contributed our thoughts to what was destined to become an image. And any one of us could take our thoughts one step further by paying attention, careful attention, to the depth of the discussions. There was risk that the image that could become a tapestry of something recognizable was quickly turning into a blur of nothing discernable the newcomer or the longtime resident. Our words which were shared were at risk of having been good for nothing. In 1996, a couple of well known smd residents decided to find a way to take a small and urgently important portion of Usenet out of "there" so that "it" could be visited by anyone who could read English. The people/readers would not need to own or have access to a computer. The people only needed to know how to read English or they could have someone else read it to them, or translate it into another language for someone else, if needed (the Italian translations come to mind). How we would accomplish the goal of building a literary bridge across the great abyss of "discussion" about a particular topic running between the Usenet/computer literate and illiterate was truly a daunting task. How we would accomphish the goal of that the bridge would provide for in a compassionate and ethical manner was paramount to everything that existed within the vision we had for a book. The book was not expected by anyone. That in and of itself was going to be shocking to the people who drove by or through the neighborhood just as much as it would be to the neighborhood residents who weren't paying close enough attention to the place they thought they knew so well. We, the insiders of smd, may have thought we were somehow insulated from the outside but we were not. And today, we are no more insulated than we were then. We do not know who amonsgt us is netcanting or why. I was paying my own kind of attention to discussions as was Chang. As people affected by a particular diagnosis familiar to dentists, we came from very different perspectives. Neither of our real stories were known to anyone except ourselves. We worked together 40 miles apart for years hoping to reach the middle of the pole for the benefit of others more so than for ourselves. The degree of difficulty of such collaboration should not be overlooked. We did not share the same landbased space until the spring of 1997. Many people assumed at a time that we worked in the same room ... not so. We made use of the electronic opportunity in the same way that we *assumed* most other posters in Usenet were doing. But that was an assumption. Maybe everyone else was in the same room and we were the only two working solo... we could not know this truth. We worked with what Usenet was supposed to be: the linking of minds via an electronic communication system. I had written several manuscripts on the subject of a TMJ iatroepidemic beginning in 1986... but none were satisfactory to me. Ironically enough, when it was time to make final editing and publishing decisions for the book, Chang asked me to be the one to make an executive decision for Webby & Chang because I was the one who held secret the topic. Even Chang was not aware of my total vision. I held close the understanding of the weaving I needed to do in order to tell the story from my perspective. Chang was a control in the experiment; a control like everyone else except that he was part of the netcanting project that no one else knew existed. My problem: Could he learn what the iatroepidemic was by way of visiting smd and reading the book he collaborated on without knowing all I had in mind? Chang was kept an outsider in the very book he was collaborating on because he was part of the experiment just like everyone else. Until he read the working manuscript complete with my interpretive netcantings, I could not know if the book could go to press. This may be difficult for readers to understand. If Chang had said, "Webby, I don't understand what you're getting at here." I would have withheld the decision to publish. But what happened was this: It was as though a lightbulb had been turned on in a dark room when Chang finished reading the book he had helped me write. His eyes were bright and large and he said, "I get it, Webby. How can anyone not get it after reading this?" And so I said, "It's time to go to press, Chang." And we went. Faced with the decision to go to press with a manuscript that was still in many ways unacceptable to me was something that boiled down to a matter of vanity. Was I too vain to let an imperfect work be seen by strangers? For me, the answer was no. It couldn't be about vanity because it never had been about that. Because the files had been infected by a serious electronic virus (warfare) making it impossible to add or subtract a single word in the manuscript, I had to know in my own mind if enough had been removed and enough had been saved in order to deliver something ethically. It was a peculiar balancing act. Fortunately, many editing decisions had been accomplished before the virus struck. If that hadn't been the case, my ethics would have caused me to have to reject the surviving work and to start all over again. What allowed for me to make my decision was in knowing the details of what I *intended* readers to read. To publish a manuscript that *had to be* imperfect or else not to be at all was a matter I looked upon as being that of aa matter of poetic license. Usenet and its discussions are not perfect. The topic, "The TMJ Iatroepidemic", holds no perfect questions or answers. Afterall, the book was meant to present a new beginning not an ending... the book was meant to cause the reader to think about what wasn't in the book at least as much as what was there. There was no reason to waste the history we had captured. This post is mostly about the birth of a book in 1997, "The TMJ Iatroepidemic: Unintentional Confessions of a Profession", coauthored by smd residents Webby & Chang. But is has everything to do with the ongoing development of smd and other Usenet newsgroups as part of our global society. When we post to smd or any other newsgroup in Usenet, we do so with the idea that we want to share our thoughts with other readers. The greatest mysteries of Usenet are still mysteries. One great mystery has to do with the question: where does all this discussion go? What happens to our words when we no longer find them available on our news servers? Where are *all* the old posts of Usenet archived? The big question: Why do commercial archives exist and what do we know about government archives? (You must allow your mind to linger when pondering that last compound question if you are to realize that "someone", "somewhere", holds onto one or more of the answers to the question because we do not know the answers.) Webby & Chang developed an archive that was apparently beyond the imagination of most of smd's readers at the time. (The archive is vast and its sum total remains a secret known only to us.) Most in smd couldn't imagine why anyone would want to do such a thing... afterall, it was a lot of work and storage was a different problem than it is today. And some probably never realized that archiving the posts of smd was a technical option to users at all. Without question, what we did back then was way ahead of its time. The fact that I had a topic in mind to write about that depended upon the candor of the public, professional and lay, was also probably way ahead of its time then... and I suspect it is still ahead of its time. But this question is why I am writing this today. The reason for this this post is to remind us about the accountability behind the decisions we make when we decide to share in public what may be best kept in private. We are accountable for the ideas we share in public with readers who are invisible just as much as we are accountable to those whom we have met face to face in the "other reality", often referred to as the "real world". Usenet has witnesses... think of what you witness when you go past the neighborhoods every single day on your way to wherever it is you go. Sooner or later, you think you know whether "those neighborhoods" are a place you want to go inside of or not. If you take your car (your thoughts) into a neighborhood where you are thought of as an outsider, will you feel as safe as you do on the street where you live? Being like minded is often what neighborhoods are about. Pick up your morning newspaper and peer into the neighborhoods being reported about right there in black and white. Do you know the people who live there? Think carefully about why I am choosing these words today. These are words that are in my mind everyday, but not words I share with anyone everyday. As much as the book's content felt uncomfortable to readers and especially so to readers who found their words memorialized on the pages of a book... readers would have been aghast had certain editing decisions been managed differently and I had chosen to go to press with more of the "real stories told in smd". For those of you who haven't read the book I'm referring to, perhaps this is something you should do so that you have a better understanding of Joel's comment and also about what I'm about to share. (Copies are still for sale. Send me an email if you're interested.) Webby & Chang read every single word in every single thread considered for the netcanting project. Furthermore, we memorized them. Most readers could have no way of knowing what we refused to include of your words as a matter of deciding the writer's intent. When we read posts, we had to decide *if* the writer would really want the words memorialized into a book for anyone to read. Did they truly believe their words were only viewed by those they felt to be their "friends" in the club -- their private neighborhood? Who were we, Webby & Chang, to decide such intentions of someone else? At this time, December 1st in the year 2000, after all we've seen happen in November 2000 in the USA and around the world, this topic concerning the intentions of others is a pretty big deal. It is a global matter. The matter of intentions of others was also a very big deal to me back in the years when this manuscript was being developed. I was certain that doctors in small towns would not want posts of theirs to appear in a book that may have given away the identity of certain patients who had no idea they were being "talked about" or somehow referred to by their doctors in a public place ... a public but obscured place. We were very much like the people in the neighborhoods we drive past everyday. While driving by, we catch glimpes of what the people do there at the same time every day. The parents can be seen kissing their chidren goodbye as they leave for school or board the giant yellow busses to carry them to school... everyone expects them to be kept safe for the day... safe from physical harm and safe from humiliation. Sometimes the events of the day are not so kind. The book, "The TMJ Iatroepidemic: Unintentional Confessons of a Profession" was like the big yellow school bus... a means of transportation we depend upon to be safe. How could the coauthors of that book send everyone to school where lessons in life could be explored without shattering the lives of anyone person for the sake of the lessons offered? Could it be done? It was our intention to do our best to protect, inform, and to provoke thought. What is particularly important to this thread comes by way of understanding a term that Webby & Chang coined: netcanting. Netcanting is a process that allows for interpretation of an ongoing discussion which is concerned with a particular topic. The actual electronic discussion takes its shape over time and via numerous or perhaps countless interrelated threads appearing in one or more Usenet newsgroup. Who is the person who does the netcanting?? That's a question that hasn't been addressed in smd or anywhere else that I'm aware of; but, that doesn't mean that somewhere else, someone else, hasn't taken an interest in this very subject. How did we arrive at the word "netcanting"? It was a long and deliberate search we undertook to find a truly appropriate word to describe what we were about to do. The word itself is probably glossed over, driven past, by almost anyone who comes upon it, but it shouldn't be. The word explored: net- is an abbreviation for the internet in its entirety. The word "net" suggests safety and hazard at the same time. "The net" is under a constant state of change because it is thought to be developed by humans and technology and humans who make use of technology. Since the word, netcanting, was first used in public in 1997 when "The TMJ Iatroepidemic" was published, its dimension was limited to the technology of the times. How we define "netcanting" with each coming day will depend upon the technology that is at our disposal via the internet and the ethics of the people who use this medium to communicate. Languages around the world both ancient and contemporary are interpreted and defined by scholars who do those sort of things. We depend upon scholars to interpret languages used before our times. In the last decade, we the people have "invented" so many new words and acronyms that the scholars may never bother defining much of them in the future. We have a new word explosion... and understanding the intention of those using certain words, much less the countless new acronyms, is a human adventure that may simply vanish or be crushed by its own weight before it can be studied. Many people are led by the media to think that "the net" is (only) the World Wide Web. As most of us in smd know, this idea put to the public represents an incomplete and therefore incorrect understanding of the technology by a great many people. (How many people who you come into contact with daily can tell you what Usenet is and how to get "there"?) The fact that Usenet seems to be an isolated area on the net leads many people to think that they are somehow invisible here; somehow unaccountable for their words. We are not invisible nor or we unaccountable here. Our "club", our "neighborhood" is open to the public. We have no idea who lurks or why. Much of the time we have trouble understanding why those who post, post as they do. I know that for a long time, few in smd could understand why I posted as I did or why Chang posted as he did. This is the number one rule that anyone should understand fully *before* clicking on the send button for any post they wish to submit to "the archives"; because that *is* what you are doing. Think about what you do not know as a part of what you do know. Now we come to the interesting part of the term: cant. I spent a lot of time researching the many meanings of the word and it is a fascinating word at the very least. History came full swing into the last four years of the 20th century when I decided in 1996 to take the many meanings of "cant" into the meaning of a new word "netcant". I submitted my idea to Chang and it was met with his approval: Netcanting was our new word. I will give you the definition of this word from what is now an *old* dictionary by all standards. Yet, this is the one I used for the basis of my research into the word: cant. "The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary", 1981 n. 1, insincere speech or writing, esp. conventional pretense to high ideals or aims. 2, the special vocabulary or speech of a profession or class, as the whine of beggars; argot. 3, a tilt, slant, or obliquity. 4. a salient angle. -- v.i. 1. utter cant. 2, tilt; list. -- v.t. 1. make oblique; bevel. 2, tip; upset. And so I give my readers, whomever they all may be, an insight into the word "netcanting" that you may not have realized before today, this first day of December in the year 2000. We are all netcanters in the beginning. But when we write netcantings, interpretations of the writings of the netcanters... that is when smd takes on a new, different, and powerful dimension of its own. [cut] Webby
From: Tim Dixon on 22 Aug 2008 10:43 Great to re-read this Webby. Chang "The Webby" <tmjiatroepidemic(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:tmjiatroepidemic-A4ECD0.21094421082008(a)news.west.cox.net... >I thought it might be worthwhile to repost this old and very lengthy > post of mine for reasons that may or may not seem obvious, given the > posts of someone else who is posting to smd with notices that he has "a > book" to share. I can't act as though I have not also hoped that others > would take time from their lives to consider "my book". > > My memories of some of the "old posters" to smd have faded; but, I do my > best to remember those who participated here and especially those who > were involved in discussions with me. > > Sincerely yours, > Webby > > > ~~~~~~~ > Dec 1 2000 > Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry > Date: 2000/12/01 > Subject: What does the word "netcanting" mean? (a long post) > > > The inspiration for this post results from my reading of what others > write. I hope if you have read this far, you will read to the final > word. I also hope that you will be inspired to add comment upon this > post. > > It is my opinion that Usenet is a place none of us can fully know. I > think we're doing well if we begin to try to understand the power of > this communication medium. It is the kind of place that most who > visit for varying periods of time without ever thinking about its many > mysteries. In that respect, it's like the "real world". It's like > the real world's countless neighborhoods in countless places where > people identify in one way or another with each other and for whom > those on the outside may be perceived as different from themselves as > somehow a potential threat to their security. With our automobiles > and trains, we easily drive through or drive by many places where > people live; some live there for their entire (long) lives never > venturing more than 25 miles beyonds it's "borders". > > The people in those neighborhoods are ordinary people and for the most > part they are like you and me. They get up sometime after sleeping > for a period of time each day -- or so. They eat and take care of > what needs to be done. They do their best to pay their bills. They > love their family members and dear friends. They greet their > neighbors and sometimes greet neighbors whose names they never come to > know but are neighbors just the same. They read newspapers, magazines > and books and listen to music of various genres. They watch > television. They go to the movies once in awhile or rent movies from > their neighborhood VHS/DVD libraries. They participate in social > circles stemming from work, places of worship, or recreational > activities. They send their children to neighborhood schools. They > go to work somewhere. *And* in the course of the last five years or > so, they have been getting onto the internet as a means of modern > travel to far and distant places they would never otherwise visit. > These ordinary people are connected to their society. How far the > borders of their lives extend has become impossible to know. > > This newest means of going beyond our "real neighbornoods" has offered > people with the financial and necessary technical skills a means to do > something adventuresome. There exists an opportunity to see with a > sense of physical safety aspects of the outside world without ever > really going there and exposing themselves to various hazards of the > journeys. They make friends there... or they think they make friends > there. Where is "there"? What is "there"? Who is "there"? "Who" > are we who go "there"? We are the outsiders who are now on the > inside. But, where we are and who we are is far from clear. This > new community, a new society, is beginning to be studied by those who > study these kinds of social movements of society. In my case, I saw > this social movement from as much an an artistic perspective as > anything else. Certainly, I didn't see this "place" as a question > and answer kind of a place. For me the questions developed more > rather than less depth. I saw something happening that was in need of > interpretation. I saw that the netcanters were everyone. We each > contributed our thoughts to what was destined to become an image. > And any one of us could take our thoughts one step further by paying > attention, careful attention, to the depth of the discussions. There > was risk that the image that could become a tapestry of something > recognizable was quickly turning into a blur of nothing discernable > the newcomer or the longtime resident. Our words which were shared > were at risk of having been good for nothing. > > In 1996, a couple of well known smd residents decided to find a way to > take a small and urgently important portion of Usenet out of "there" > so that "it" could be visited by anyone who could read English. The > people/readers would not need to own or have access to a computer. > The people only needed to know how to read English or they could have > someone else read it to them, or translate it into another language > for someone else, if needed (the Italian translations come to mind). > How we would accomplish the goal of building a literary bridge across > the great abyss of "discussion" about a particular topic running > between the Usenet/computer literate and illiterate was truly a > daunting task. How we would accomphish the goal of that the bridge > would provide for in a compassionate and ethical manner was paramount > to everything that existed within the vision we had for a book. The > book was not expected by anyone. That in and of itself was going to > be shocking to the people who drove by or through the neighborhood > just as much as it would be to the neighborhood residents who weren't > paying close enough attention to the place they thought they knew so > well. We, the insiders of smd, may have thought we were somehow > insulated from the outside but we were not. And today, we are no more > insulated than we were then. We do not know who amonsgt us is > netcanting or why. > > I was paying my own kind of attention to discussions as was Chang. As > people affected by a particular diagnosis familiar to dentists, we > came from very different perspectives. Neither of our real stories > were known to anyone except ourselves. We worked together 40 miles > apart for years hoping to reach the middle of the pole for the benefit > of others more so than for ourselves. The degree of difficulty of > such collaboration should not be overlooked. We did not share the > same landbased space until the spring of 1997. Many people assumed at > a time that we worked in the same room ... not so. We made use of the > electronic opportunity in the same way that we *assumed* most other > posters in Usenet were doing. But that was an assumption. Maybe > everyone else was in the same room and we were the only two working > solo... we could not know this truth. We worked with what Usenet was > supposed to be: the linking of minds via an electronic communication > system. > > I had written several manuscripts on the subject of a TMJ > iatroepidemic beginning in 1986... but none were satisfactory to me. > Ironically enough, when it was time to make final editing and > publishing decisions for the book, Chang asked me to be the one to > make an executive decision for Webby & Chang because I was the one who > held secret the topic. Even Chang was not aware of my total vision. > I held close the understanding of the weaving I needed to do in order > to tell the story from my perspective. Chang was a control in the > experiment; a control like everyone else except that he was part of > the netcanting project that no one else knew existed. My problem: > Could he learn what the iatroepidemic was by way of visiting smd and > reading the book he collaborated on without knowing all I had in mind? > Chang was kept an outsider in the very book he was collaborating on > because he was part of the experiment just like everyone else. Until > he read the working manuscript complete with my interpretive > netcantings, I could not know if the book could go to press. This may > be difficult for readers to understand. If Chang had said, "Webby, I > don't understand what you're getting at here." I would have withheld > the decision to publish. But what happened was this: It was as > though a lightbulb had been turned on in a dark room when Chang > finished reading the book he had helped me write. His eyes were > bright and large and he said, "I get it, Webby. How can anyone not > get it after reading this?" And so I said, "It's time to go to press, > Chang." And we went. > > Faced with the decision to go to press with a manuscript that was > still in many ways unacceptable to me was something that boiled down > to a matter of vanity. Was I too vain to let an imperfect work be > seen by strangers? For me, the answer was no. It couldn't be about > vanity because it never had been about that. Because the files had > been infected by a serious electronic virus (warfare) making it > impossible to add or subtract a single word in the manuscript, I had > to know in my own mind if enough had been removed and enough had been > saved in order to deliver something ethically. It was a peculiar > balancing act. Fortunately, many editing decisions had been > accomplished before the virus struck. If that hadn't been the case, > my ethics would have caused me to have to reject the surviving work > and to start all over again. What allowed for me to make my decision > was in knowing the details of what I *intended* readers to read. To > publish a manuscript that *had to be* imperfect or else not to be at > all was a matter I looked upon as being that of aa matter of poetic > license. Usenet and its discussions are not perfect. The topic, > "The TMJ Iatroepidemic", holds no perfect questions or answers. > Afterall, the book was meant to present a new beginning not an > ending... the book was meant to cause the reader to think about what > wasn't in the book at least as much as what was there. There was no > reason to waste the history we had captured. > > This post is mostly about the birth of a book in 1997, "The TMJ > Iatroepidemic: Unintentional Confessions of a Profession", coauthored > by smd residents Webby & Chang. But is has everything to do with the > ongoing development of smd and other Usenet newsgroups as part of our > global society. > > When we post to smd or any other newsgroup in Usenet, we do so with > the idea that we want to share our thoughts with other readers. The > greatest mysteries of Usenet are still mysteries. One great mystery > has to do with the question: where does all this discussion go? What > happens to our words when we no longer find them available on our news > servers? Where are *all* the old posts of Usenet archived? The big > question: Why do commercial archives exist and what do we know about > government archives? (You must allow your mind to linger when > pondering that last compound question if you are to realize that > "someone", "somewhere", holds onto one or more of the answers to the > question because we do not know the answers.) > > Webby & Chang developed an archive that was apparently beyond the > imagination of most of smd's readers at the time. (The archive is > vast and its sum total remains a secret known only to us.) Most in smd > couldn't imagine why anyone would want to do such a thing... afterall, > it was a lot of work and storage was a different problem than it is > today. And some probably never realized that archiving the posts of > smd was a technical option to users at all. Without question, what we > did back then was way ahead of its time. The fact that I had a topic > in mind to write about that depended upon the candor of the public, > professional and lay, was also probably way ahead of its time then... > and I suspect it is still ahead of its time. But this question is why > I am writing this today. > > The reason for this this post is to remind us about the accountability > behind the decisions we make when we decide to share in public what > may be best kept in private. We are accountable for the ideas we > share in public with readers who are invisible just as much as we are > accountable to those whom we have met face to face in the "other > reality", often referred to as the "real world". Usenet has > witnesses... think of what you witness when you go past the > neighborhoods every single day on your way to wherever it is you go. > Sooner or later, you think you know whether "those neighborhoods" are > a place you want to go inside of or not. If you take your car (your > thoughts) into a neighborhood where you are thought of as an outsider, > will you feel as safe as you do on the street where you live? Being > like minded is often what neighborhoods are about. Pick up your > morning newspaper and peer into the neighborhoods being reported about > right there in black and white. Do you know the people who live > there? Think carefully about why I am choosing these words today. > These are words that are in my mind everyday, but not words I share > with anyone everyday. > > As much as the book's content felt uncomfortable to readers and > especially so to readers who found their words memorialized on the > pages of a book... readers would have been aghast had certain editing > decisions been managed differently and I had chosen to go to press > with more of the "real stories told in smd". For those of you who > haven't read the book I'm referring to, perhaps this is something you > should do so that you have a better understanding of Joel's comment > and also about what I'm about to share. (Copies are still for sale. > Send me an email if you're interested.) > > Webby & Chang read every single word in every single thread considered > for the netcanting project. Furthermore, we memorized them. Most > readers could have no way of knowing what we refused to include of > your words as a matter of deciding the writer's intent. When we read > posts, we had to decide *if* the writer would really want the words > memorialized into a book for anyone to read. Did they truly believe > their words were only viewed by those they felt to be their "friends" > in the club -- their private neighborhood? Who were we, Webby & > Chang, to decide such intentions of someone else? At this time, > December 1st in the year 2000, after all we've seen happen in November > 2000 in the USA and around the world, this topic concerning the > intentions of others is a pretty big deal. It is a global matter. > > The matter of intentions of others was also a very big deal to me back > in the years when this manuscript was being developed. I was certain > that doctors in small towns would not want posts of theirs to appear > in a book that may have given away the identity of certain patients > who had no idea they were being "talked about" or somehow referred to > by their doctors in a public place ... a public but obscured place. > We were very much like the people in the neighborhoods we drive past > everyday. While driving by, we catch glimpes of what the people do > there at the same time every day. The parents can be seen kissing > their chidren goodbye as they leave for school or board the giant > yellow busses to carry them to school... everyone expects them to be > kept safe for the day... safe from physical harm and safe from > humiliation. Sometimes the events of the day are not so kind. The > book, "The TMJ Iatroepidemic: Unintentional Confessons of a > Profession" was like the big yellow school bus... a means of > transportation we depend upon to be safe. How could the coauthors of > that book send everyone to school where lessons in life could be > explored without shattering the lives of anyone person for the sake of > the lessons offered? Could it be done? It was our intention to do > our best to protect, inform, and to provoke thought. > > What is particularly important to this thread comes by way of > understanding a term that Webby & Chang coined: netcanting. > Netcanting is a process that allows for interpretation of an ongoing > discussion which is concerned with a particular topic. The actual > electronic discussion takes its shape over time and via numerous or > perhaps countless interrelated threads appearing in one or more Usenet > newsgroup. Who is the person who does the netcanting?? That's a > question that hasn't been addressed in smd or anywhere else that I'm > aware of; but, that doesn't mean that somewhere else, someone else, > hasn't taken an interest in this very subject. > > How did we arrive at the word "netcanting"? It was a long and > deliberate search we undertook to find a truly appropriate word to > describe what we were about to do. The word itself is probably > glossed over, driven past, by almost anyone who comes upon it, but it > shouldn't be. > > The word explored: > > net- is an abbreviation for the internet in its entirety. The word > "net" suggests safety and hazard at the same time. "The net" is under > a constant state of change because it is thought to be developed by > humans and technology and humans who make use of technology. Since > the word, netcanting, was first used in public in 1997 when "The TMJ > Iatroepidemic" was published, its dimension was limited to the > technology of the times. How we define "netcanting" with each coming > day will depend upon the technology that is at our disposal via the > internet and the ethics of the people who use this medium to > communicate. Languages around the world both ancient and contemporary > are interpreted and defined by scholars who do those sort of things. > We depend upon scholars to interpret languages used before our times. > In the last decade, we the people have "invented" so many new words > and acronyms that the scholars may never bother defining much of them > in the future. We have a new word explosion... and understanding the > intention of those using certain words, much less the countless new > acronyms, is a human adventure that may simply vanish or be crushed > by its own weight before it can be studied. > > Many people are led by the media to think that "the net" is (only) the > World Wide Web. As most of us in smd know, this idea put to the > public represents an incomplete and therefore incorrect understanding > of the technology by a great many people. (How many people who you > come into contact with daily can tell you what Usenet is and how to > get "there"?) > > The fact that Usenet seems to be an isolated area on the net leads > many people to think that they are somehow invisible here; somehow > unaccountable for their words. We are not invisible nor or we > unaccountable here. Our "club", our "neighborhood" is open to the > public. We have no idea who lurks or why. Much of the time we have > trouble understanding why those who post, post as they do. I know > that for a long time, few in smd could understand why I posted as I > did or why Chang posted as he did. This is the number one rule that > anyone should understand fully *before* clicking on the send button > for any post they wish to submit to "the archives"; because that *is* > what you are doing. Think about what you do not know as a part of > what you do know. > > Now we come to the interesting part of the term: cant. > > I spent a lot of time researching the many meanings of the word and it > is a fascinating word at the very least. History came full swing into > the last four years of the 20th century when I decided in 1996 to take > the many meanings of "cant" into the meaning of a new word "netcant". > I submitted my idea to Chang and it was met with his approval: > Netcanting was our new word. > > I will give you the definition of this word from what is now an *old* > dictionary by all standards. Yet, this is the one I used for the > basis of my research into the word: cant. > > "The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary", 1981 > n. 1, insincere speech or writing, esp. conventional pretense to high > ideals or aims. 2, the special vocabulary or speech of a profession > or class, as the whine of beggars; argot. 3, a tilt, slant, or > obliquity. 4. a salient angle. -- v.i. 1. utter cant. 2, tilt; > list. -- v.t. 1. make oblique; bevel. 2, tip; upset. > > And so I give my readers, whomever they all may be, an insight into > the word "netcanting" that you may not have realized before today, > this first day of December in the year 2000. > > We are all netcanters in the beginning. But when we write > netcantings, interpretations of the writings of the netcanters... that > is when smd takes on a new, different, and powerful dimension of its > own. > > [cut] Webby
From: The Webby on 22 Aug 2008 13:15 Reference to November 2000 concerned political elections in the USA resulting in the "Hanging Chad" issue as a matter of one person deciding the intention of an anonymous-other when the decision is of great significance to many people. W. In article <1gArk.5308$Ks1.3852(a)newsfe02.iad>, "Tim Dixon" <timgdixon(a)cox.net> wrote: > Great to re-read this Webby. > > Chang > [cut] > > At this time, > > December 1st in the year 2000, after all we've seen happen in November > > 2000 in the USA and around the world, this topic concerning the > > intentions of others is a pretty big deal. It is a global matter. > > > > The matter of intentions of others was also a very big deal to me back > > in the years when this manuscript was being developed. [cut]
From: Vaughn Simon on 22 Aug 2008 18:40 "The Webby" <tmjiatroepidemic(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:tmjiatroepidemic-13E0E7.10154122082008(a)news.west.cox.net... > Reference to November 2000 concerned political elections in the USA > resulting in the "Hanging Chad" issue ... I have actually had lunch with Theresa LePore (the designer of the butterfly ballot). Now all that is left (OK, one thing that is left) to make my life complete would be lunch with the author of The TMJ Iatroepidemic. I am looking forward to the unintentional confessions. -- Vaughn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program. You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time $3.95 setup fee. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will poofread for food.
From: The Webby on 23 Aug 2008 10:59
In article <WfHrk.11538$Mh5.10849(a)bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM(a)att.FAKE.net> wrote: > "The Webby" <tmjiatroepidemic(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:tmjiatroepidemic-13E0E7.10154122082008(a)news.west.cox.net... > > Reference to November 2000 concerned political elections in the USA > > resulting in the "Hanging Chad" issue ... > > I have actually had lunch with Theresa LePore (the designer of the > butterfly > ballot). > > Now all that is left (OK, one thing that is left) to make my life complete > would be lunch with the author of The TMJ Iatroepidemic. I am looking > forward > to the unintentional confessions. Ahhh, the trouble with infamy ... but if it gets me a lunch date with Vaughn... ;-) !!!! I survived my reputation... "<VBG>" (Fawks likes that emoticon) and at the end of the day, I gained a collection of very special friends. Webby |