RE: SUO: SUMO / IFF
. Having been through something a bit akin to this earlier
on, I am disappointed it is happening again.
. Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion that Chris sometimes
doesn't read things fully, and sometimes sees threats/risks that aren't
always there, sometimes as a result of not having fully considered what was
said. I also found he sometimes uses language that tends to carry an
implicit bias. I found this can all be most distressing and frustrating for
the object of his ire, since it leads to a feeling of being falsely accused.
I am still stinging from some of what was directed at me many months ago.
. The best way I can think of for both sides is for each to
provide instances that the other acknowledges is valid and relevant, and
then both develop conclusions about the implications. This should be a
convergent iterative process if true communication is occurring, and the
real underlying issues are being addressed.
. I hope we can get back to real, relevant and fully considered
issues as soon as possible.
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
From: Robert Grayson Spillers [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2001 17:37
To: Chris Menzel
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; IEEE Standard Upper Ontology List
Subject: Re: SUO: SUMO / IFF
Chris Menzel wrote:
Bob Spillers wrote:
Gee Chris, I am so glad that you oppose mud-slinging.
As a tactic employed in lieu of sound argument, yes.
RGS: Yes, but...
Of course "sarcastic, innuendo-laden personal attacks" that are
"distasteful and inappropriate" suggesting a "hidden agenda" and relying
on "ad hominem mud-slinging" are considered and temperate judgments
that "stick to the issues".
Yes indeed.The issue in my post was your behavior on this list, which,
unfortunately, has become relevant, and all of my comments were explicitly
directed at that issue.
RGS: Well, it is comforting to know that you only sling it (mud) at those
whose behavior you disapprove and only about relevant issues.
As to your messages to Adam regularly being
sarcastic, innuendo-laden, and ad hominem, that is just a simple
RGS: I do admit to a little (mild) sarcasm, but you should look it up and
compare it with irony - and while you have the book open check out humor.
It has long been a staple of debate (along with sarcasm and irony).
I don't think I need to collect quotes. As to their being
distasteful and inappropriate, that was clearly stated to be a personal
-- though one shared by at least one other regular participant on
the list who has spoken up, and I'd bet a slew of others who have not. And
the point about a hidden agenda was not itself meant to be innuendo
RGS: Of course not.
-- I have no evidence that you have one, and I apologize if I gave that
impression -- but only a comment on the negative rhetorical effect that
your bullying tactics have on your arguments.
RGS: Thanks for the advice.
You are *so* strident that
the mind is left groping for explanations instead of paying attention to
anything that looks like reasoning.
Pardon me while I wipe off enough mud ...
That's from your own hand, Bob -- you can't sling mud without soiling
yourself. You just happen finally to have noticed.
RGS: You see, this is sarcasm - maybe a little clumsy, but still (mild)
sarcasm. Irony would have been - - well you have probably looked it up by
to be able to point out what I think it was intended to obscure:
(1) Teknowledge's desire to gain and maintain a privileged status
vis-a-vis other contributors.
As to their desiring to gain a "privileged" status for SUMO, why not? They
have taken the initiative with that document and they believe in it, have
invested resources in it, and want people to work on it.
RGS: Yes, they do , they have, they do, they do and they do. (I'm biting
my tongue at this point so I won't make the obvious pun)
As to its being
"privileged", all it means for a document to be privileged in this context
is that a subset of the people in the group have agreed -- via a certain
possibly flawed procedure -- to work on it, or have at least agreed to
support work on it. Why shouldn't Teknowledge want that?
RGS: No reason at all why Teknowledge shouldn't want it. It is others in
the group that do not want it.
As to your charge (tacked on subtly to the innocuous observation above)
that they wish to *maintain* that "privileged" status uniquely for the
SUMO -- a much more serious and ethically significant charge -- your
"arguments" amount to nothing more than a stump speech tactic: say
something enough times and people will start believing it. In my
recollection, Adam has repeatedly expressed his willingness to have any
document become similarly "privileged" through accepted procedures, and I
challenge you here and now to make your charge to the contrary stick.
RGS: You are correct that Adam has repeatedly said that other documents
may obtain a similar status - by winning a vote.
(2) Their view that opposition is obstruction and those opposed should
Do you find it "ad hominem mud-slinging" if one frequently and
forcefully suggests that I only wish to obstruct the process of creating
a greater and more glorious SUMO
Obstruct? I don't recall him using that language. But you certainly
oppose SUMO -- and there's nothing wrong with that (though the "greater
and more glorious" rhetoric obscures the point needlessly).
RGS: The quote is from Adam's note to me of 8/25/01. (emphasis added)
I can't understand why it's in your best interest to obstruct this group
when your efforts could be put to productive use in another forum.
and that I (and those weak minded
enough to also oppose it) should leave the SUO?
He has never made any such claim. My recollection of the one remark of
Adam's that might be construed in this fashion -- one I recall directed
solely at you and no one else -- was in regard to your opposition to the
*process* by which the SUMO had become a starter document. *Many* SUO
participants have forcefully opposed the SUMO -- with arguments -- yet all
I can recall is Adam attempting (for good or ill) to respond to them,
generally with a good deal of courtesy and patience.I don't recall him
ever hinting that they should leave the SUO. Why is that, when it is so
clear to you that Adam believes that *everyone* opposed to the SUMO should
RGS: I wrote on 8/25/01 (emphasis added)
Uhmm, let's see if I can get this correct.
If everyone who wishes to is freely allowed to contribute whatever documents
they think would be valuable to a standard (and without the having to
conduct a vote on each contribution) - that would not be a standards effort.
We know this from Frank's assurances that it would not. Anyone interested
in this sort of aberrant behavior should find another place to do it.
Adam responded - also on 8/25/01 (emphasis added)
That's correct. That's not to say that such efforts can't be worthwhile,
but that's not what this group is for. SourceForge is a good example of a
repository into which anyone can place whatever they wish.