SUO: RE: reader friendly e-mails for sorting and grouping
Jon,
Yes, but what about the other SUO lists.
I, and I believe some others, had to subscribe
to ALL the SUO lists, because of the
unreliability of the method of list selection.
Just looking at the latest post of a thread my
e-mail system lists as having 31 items since
25 Jul '01- all from you, I see it gives
"Stand! Unfold! Ontology!" is a cc addressee.
I also see "Stand! Unfold! Ontology!" has
"ontology@ieee.org " as its e-mail address.
In any event, why shouldn't you want to be
considerate to subscribers to the other SUO
lists such as "Stand! Unfold! Ontology!"?
Graham Horn
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2001 13:47
To: Horn, Graham
Cc: Jim Schoening
Subject: Re: reader friendly e-mails for sorting and grouping
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Graham,
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have not posted anything at all to the
SUO List <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
since Mon, 09 Jul 2001 19:40:38 -0400.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Horn, Graham wrote:
>
> Dear Jon,
> In view of your response below to my
> request, it needs to be said you are still
> one of the more prolific posters of input
> to the SUO list. In fact, I would venture
> to say that you are possibly still the
> most prolific poster of input to it.
>
> Furthermore, many of your contributions
> are responses to other contributions.
>
> Is there any reason why you wish to not
> make your contributions more convenient
> to the rest of us?
>
> Graham Horn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> <mailto:[mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2001 12:53
> To: Graham Horn
> Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Quantity of Postings]]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> <mailto:[mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]>
> Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2001 6:48
> To: Jim Schoening
> Cc: Stand! Unfold! Ontology!
> Subject: [Fwd: Quantity of Postings]
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim,
>
> With respect to the Main SUO Work I am but a "mildly intersted onlooker"
at
> this point. I have unsubscribed from the main list and removed its
address
> from my address book, so unless I inadvertently hit <reply-all> you should
> not have gotten any e-mail from me on that line since the message of Mon,
09
> Jul 2001 19:40:38 -0400 on "Quantity of Postings" that I have attached for
> your reference. The message that you reply to here was sent to the "ONT"
> Sublist, as you have often requested. The Archives have been down all
week
> so I have no way of knowing if the Archiver is cross-listing stuff.
> All The Best Wishes,
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim Schoening wrote:
> >
> > Subj: RE: ONT Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
> > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:08:14 -0400
> > From: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
> <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
> <mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> >
> > To: "'Jon Awbrey'" <jawbrey@oakland.edu <mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu> >
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Please take this as a friendly request.
> >
> > Your volume of postings is again back to a very high level.
> > Please be careful to post only those messages that contribute
> > to the scope of this project.
> >
> > I have not been reading your recent threat [thread?] on inquiry.
> > Obviously it relates to ontology and probably even to an upper ontology,
> > but then everything under the sun does. Is there a direct connection
> > that would justify this discussion on the SUO list. If not, could
> > you move it to the Ontology list?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Awbrey
> > To: W.M. Jaworski;
> > Paul Prueitt
> > Cc: Arisbe;
> > Stand! Unfold! Ontology!;
> > Topic Map Mail;
> > Organization, Complexity, Autonomy
> > Sent: 7/25/01 2:44 PM
> > Subj: ONT Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~ARCHIVE~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > Subj: Re: Inquiry
> > Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:36:37 -0400
> > From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu <mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu> >
> > To: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> <mailto:standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org> >
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
> > | mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
> > | che la diritta via era smarrita.
> > |
> > | Midway upon the journey of our life
> > | I found myself within a forest dark,
> > | For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
> > |
> > | Dante Alighieri, 'Inferno', Canto 1.1-3
> > | http://www.divinecomedy.org/ <http://www.divinecomedy.org/>
> > | http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/dante/
> <http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/dante/>
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | If, walking in a garden on a dark night, you were suddenly
> > | to hear the voice of your sister crying to you to rescue her
> > | from a villain, would you stop to reason out the metaphysical
> > | question of whether it were possible for one mind to cause
> > | material waves of sound and for another mind to perceive them?
> > | If you did, the problem might probably occupy the remainder
> > | of your days.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "Vitally Important Topics", CP 1.655.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason,
> > | that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so
> > | desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to
> > | think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves
> > | to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:
> > |
> > | Do not block the way of inquiry.
> > |
> > | Although it is better to be methodical in our investigations,
> > | and to consider the economics of research, yet there is no
> > | positive sin against logic in 'trying' any theory which
> > | may come into our heads, so long as it is adopted in such
> > | a sense as to permit the investigation to go on unimpeded
> > | and undiscouraged. On the other hand, to set up a philosophy
> > | which barricades the road of further advance toward the truth
> > | is the one unpardonable offence in reasoning, as it is also
> > | the one to which metaphysicians have in all ages shown
> > | themselves the most addicted.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "The First Rule of Reason", CP
> 1.135-136.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of
> > | an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate
> > | in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert
> > | the elements of the original situation into a unified whole.
> > |
> > | John Dewey, "Logic: The Theory of Inquiry", in 'John Dewey:
> > | The Later Works, 1925-1953, Volume 12: 1938', Edited by
> > | J.A. Boydston, Southern Illinois University Press,
> > | Carbondale, IL, 1986, page 108.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | This paper is based upon the theory already established,
> > | that the function of conceptions is to reduce the manifold
> > | of sensuous impressions to unity, and that the validity of
> > | a conception consists in the impossibility of reducing the
> > | content of consciousness to unity without the introduction
> > | of it.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "On a New List of Categories", 14 May
> 1867,
> > | In 'Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition,
> Vol. 2,
> > | 1867-1871', Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1984,
> page 49,
> > | Customarily cited as (CE 2, 49). Cf. 'Collected Papers', CP
> 1.545.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > By way of giving this question a proper form of inaugural,
> > I thought that I would share with you some of my favorite
> > quotations on the subject of inquiry, each one reflecting
> > a different facet of this resplendently fascinating topic.
> >
> > With regard to the bearing of the more poetic expressions,
> > I will leave you now to your own contemplations, and, for
> > the moment and the immediate future, I will focus on what
> > is evidently the most prosaic and derivative of the bunch,
> > where I think it sufficient to echo Peirce's echo of Kant.
> >
> > I believe that this statement forms a cardinal expression-
> > embodying the heart and serving as the hinge-for a very
> > important principle, one that goes a large part of the way
> > toward explaining how the information that is stored up in
> > an ontology, a "body of ontological knowledge" (BOOK), can
> > work to inform the progress of inquiries on which it bears.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~EVIHCRA~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> <mailto:[mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2001 9:41
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; Standardize Unto Others
> Subject: Re: Quantity of Postings
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Could I make a friendly request? I think you'll agree you post more
> > messages to the SUO list than anyone else. As such, could you take
> > special care to post only those messages that directly contribute
> > to the objectives of this group.
> >
> > Jim
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim,
>
> I know that it will surprise some people if I say it,
> but other than the sort of chatter that it takes just
> to have any kind of community feeling at all, that is
> all that I have been trying to do since the very start.
>
> I think that it would be good if we had some systematic way of
> analyzing our stated goals in relation to the resources that we
> already have in our command, the capacities that we need to build,
> the obstacles that we need to overcome, and the problems that we
> need to solve -- just the way that most programmer types would
> go about tackling any goal-hacking task -- but I do not see
> that happening here, so why fight it?
>
> I understand that different people have different ideas about what will
> contribute to building a SUO, but unless this working group comes up with
> an effective task-analytic method for the job, I think that it will just
> go on with a process of seeing who can shout who down. What I do not
> understand is why somebody who believes that he or she has something
> positive and constructive to contribute to his or her vision of what
> a SUO should be would even waste the time that it takes to write yet
> another one of those messages that say in effect "I will not bring
> my Imperial Circus to your town unless you clear the Arena first!"
>
> My guess is that there is a problematic dynamic affecting this community
> that
> will not be solved by the stifling of one poet or the scaping of one goat,
> but
> my guess is also that you will all insist on discovering that for
yourself,
> and
> I am tired of trying to second guess the perceptions of relevance that may
> or may
> not be in somebody else's head, so I believe that the best solution for me
> and for
> everybody else is just for me retire completely to the Ontology sublist
> heneceforth.
>
> I am posting this to the whole group so that I won't be able to go back on
> it.
>
> All The Best Wishes,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> <<[Fwd: Quantity of Postings]>> <<Re: Quantity of Postings>>
>
> d-----Original Message-----
> From: Horn, Graham
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2001 12:04
> To: Awbrey Jon (E-mail)
> Cc: Ontology Standard Upper (E-mail)
> Subject: reader friendly e-mails for sorting and grouping
>
> Dear Jon,
> I would appreciate it if you would retain
> at least recognisable portions of the titles
> of e-mails to which you are replying.
>
> This would save some of us who are
> interested in following discussions time
> in collocating emails on any particular
> discussion thread.
>
> Graham Horn
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
> Subject: [Fwd: Quantity of Postings]
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:48:07 +1000
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> To: Jim Schoening <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
> CC: Stand! Unfold! Ontology! <ontology@ieee.org>
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim,
>
> With respect to the Main SUO Work I am but a "mildly intersted onlooker"
> at this point. I have unsubscribed from the main list and removed its
> address from my address book, so unless I inadvertently hit <reply-all>
> you should not have gotten any e-mail from me on that line since the
> message of Mon, 09 Jul 2001 19:40:38 -0400 on "Quantity of Postings"
> that I have attached for your reference. The message that you reply
> to here was sent to the "ONT" Sublist, as you have often requested.
> The Archives have been down all week so I have no way of knowing
> if the Archiver is cross-listing stuff.
>
> All The Best Wishes,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim Schoening wrote:
> >
> > Subj: RE: ONT Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
> > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:08:14 -0400
> > From: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
> <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
> > To: "'Jon Awbrey'" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Please take this as a friendly request.
> >
> > Your volume of postings is again back to a very high level.
> > Please be careful to post only those messages that contribute
> > to the scope of this project.
> >
> > I have not been reading your recent threat [thread?] on inquiry.
> > Obviously it relates to ontology and probably even to an upper ontology,
> > but then everything under the sun does. Is there a direct connection
> > that would justify this discussion on the SUO list. If not, could
> > you move it to the Ontology list?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Awbrey
> > To: W.M. Jaworski;
> > Paul Prueitt
> > Cc: Arisbe;
> > Stand! Unfold! Ontology!;
> > Topic Map Mail;
> > Organization, Complexity, Autonomy
> > Sent: 7/25/01 2:44 PM
> > Subj: ONT Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~ARCHIVE~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > Subj: Re: Inquiry
> > Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:36:37 -0400
> > From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> > To: Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
> > | mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
> > | che la diritta via era smarrita.
> > |
> > | Midway upon the journey of our life
> > | I found myself within a forest dark,
> > | For the straightforward pathway had been lost.
> > |
> > | Dante Alighieri, 'Inferno', Canto 1.1-3
> > | http://www.divinecomedy.org/
> > | http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/dante/
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | If, walking in a garden on a dark night, you were suddenly
> > | to hear the voice of your sister crying to you to rescue her
> > | from a villain, would you stop to reason out the metaphysical
> > | question of whether it were possible for one mind to cause
> > | material waves of sound and for another mind to perceive them?
> > | If you did, the problem might probably occupy the remainder
> > | of your days.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "Vitally Important Topics", CP 1.655.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason,
> > | that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so
> > | desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to
> > | think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves
> > | to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:
> > |
> > | Do not block the way of inquiry.
> > |
> > | Although it is better to be methodical in our investigations,
> > | and to consider the economics of research, yet there is no
> > | positive sin against logic in 'trying' any theory which
> > | may come into our heads, so long as it is adopted in such
> > | a sense as to permit the investigation to go on unimpeded
> > | and undiscouraged. On the other hand, to set up a philosophy
> > | which barricades the road of further advance toward the truth
> > | is the one unpardonable offence in reasoning, as it is also
> > | the one to which metaphysicians have in all ages shown
> > | themselves the most addicted.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "The First Rule of Reason", CP 1.135-136.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of
> > | an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate
> > | in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert
> > | the elements of the original situation into a unified whole.
> > |
> > | John Dewey, "Logic: The Theory of Inquiry", in 'John Dewey:
> > | The Later Works, 1925-1953, Volume 12: 1938', Edited by
> > | J.A. Boydston, Southern Illinois University Press,
> > | Carbondale, IL, 1986, page 108.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > | This paper is based upon the theory already established,
> > | that the function of conceptions is to reduce the manifold
> > | of sensuous impressions to unity, and that the validity of
> > | a conception consists in the impossibility of reducing the
> > | content of consciousness to unity without the introduction
> > | of it.
> > |
> > | Charles Sanders Peirce, "On a New List of Categories", 14 May 1867,
> > | In 'Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Vol. 2,
> > | 1867-1871', Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1984, page 49,
> > | Customarily cited as (CE 2, 49). Cf. 'Collected Papers', CP 1.545.
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> >
> > By way of giving this question a proper form of inaugural,
> > I thought that I would share with you some of my favorite
> > quotations on the subject of inquiry, each one reflecting
> > a different facet of this resplendently fascinating topic.
> >
> > With regard to the bearing of the more poetic expressions,
> > I will leave you now to your own contemplations, and, for
> > the moment and the immediate future, I will focus on what
> > is evidently the most prosaic and derivative of the bunch,
> > where I think it sufficient to echo Peirce's echo of Kant.
> >
> > I believe that this statement forms a cardinal expression --
> > embodying the heart and serving as the hinge -- for a very
> > important principle, one that goes a large part of the way
> > toward explaining how the information that is stored up in
> > an ontology, a "body of ontological knowledge" (BOOK), can
> > work to inform the progress of inquiries on which it bears.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~EVIHCRA~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Quantity of Postings
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:40:38 +1000
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> To: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
> <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>, Standardize Unto Others
> <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Could I make a friendly request? I think you'll agree you post more
> > messages to the SUO list than anyone else. As such, could you take
> > special care to post only those messages that directly contribute
> > to the objectives of this group.
> >
> > Jim
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim,
>
> I know that it will surprise some people if I say it,
> but other than the sort of chatter that it takes just
> to have any kind of community feeling at all, that is
> all that I have been trying to do since the very start.
>
> I think that it would be good if we had some systematic way of
> analyzing our stated goals in relation to the resources that we
> already have in our command, the capacities that we need to build,
> the obstacles that we need to overcome, and the problems that we
> need to solve -- just the way that most programmer types would
> go about tackling any goal-hacking task -- but I do not see
> that happening here, so why fight it?
>
> I understand that different people have different ideas about what will
> contribute to building a SUO, but unless this working group comes up with
> an effective task-analytic method for the job, I think that it will just
> go on with a process of seeing who can shout who down. What I do not
> understand is why somebody who believes that he or she has something
> positive and constructive to contribute to his or her vision of what
> a SUO should be would even waste the time that it takes to write yet
> another one of those messages that say in effect "I will not bring
> my Imperial Circus to your town unless you clear the Arena first!"
>
> My guess is that there is a problematic dynamic affecting this community
> that
> will not be solved by the stifling of one poet or the scaping of one goat,
> but
> my guess is also that you will all insist on discovering that for
yourself,
> and
> I am tired of trying to second guess the perceptions of relevance that may
> or may
> not be in somebody else's head, so I believe that the best solution for me
> and for
> everybody else is just for me retire completely to the Ontology sublist
> heneceforth.
>
> I am posting this to the whole group so that I won't be able to go back on
> it.
>
> All The Best Wishes,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Quantity of Postings
> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:40:38 +1000
> From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> To: "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
> <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>, Standardize Unto Others
> <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Could I make a friendly request? I think you'll agree you post more
> > messages to the SUO list than anyone else. As such, could you take
> > special care to post only those messages that directly contribute
> > to the objectives of this group.
> >
> > Jim
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim,
>
> I know that it will surprise some people if I say it,
> but other than the sort of chatter that it takes just
> to have any kind of community feeling at all, that is
> all that I have been trying to do since the very start.
>
> I think that it would be good if we had some systematic way of
> analyzing our stated goals in relation to the resources that we
> already have in our command, the capacities that we need to build,
> the obstacles that we need to overcome, and the problems that we
> need to solve -- just the way that most programmer types would
> go about tackling any goal-hacking task -- but I do not see
> that happening here, so why fight it?
>
> I understand that different people have different ideas about what will
> contribute to building a SUO, but unless this working group comes up with
> an effective task-analytic method for the job, I think that it will just
> go on with a process of seeing who can shout who down. What I do not
> understand is why somebody who believes that he or she has something
> positive and constructive to contribute to his or her vision of what
> a SUO should be would even waste the time that it takes to write yet
> another one of those messages that say in effect "I will not bring
> my Imperial Circus to your town unless you clear the Arena first!"
>
> My guess is that there is a problematic dynamic affecting this community
> that
> will not be solved by the stifling of one poet or the scaping of one goat,
> but
> my guess is also that you will all insist on discovering that for
yourself,
> and
> I am tired of trying to second guess the perceptions of relevance that may
> or may
> not be in somebody else's head, so I believe that the best solution for me
> and for
> everybody else is just for me retire completely to the Ontology sublist
> heneceforth.
>
> I am posting this to the whole group so that I won't be able to go back on
> it.
>
> All The Best Wishes,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤