SUO: Re: Things To Resolve
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Jim,
Until you are prepared to apply these brands of "criteria" to
every other member of this working group with equal "justice",
I request that you cease your incessant personal "guidance",
which I am informing you that I regard as sheer harrassment.
The point of my message was clear and pertinent:
Exegesis:
| People who are genuinely interested in ontology, IFF, KIF, SUMO, SUO-CRE,
| or whatever, are not blocked from discussing those subjects to their sheer
| heart's content by the fact they have to delete 3 to 5 messages a day from me.
| The fact that they do not choose to do so is de facto evidence that they are not
| really all that interested in doing anything but chatting about procedurals, or
| whatever else they do in fact choose to spend their time doing, which personal
| preferences have nothing at all to do with me. This is obvious to any fair
| judge of the circumstances, that is, one who not fixated on some personal
| vendetta, acting on the urging of some special interest group, or
| otherwise wound up in some hidden agenda. What you are doing
| is clear and flagrant scapegoating. Please Stop.
I have done all I can to accommodate your requests.
It is obvious that you are trying to pick a fight,
and that you prefer to pick only those fights that
you have overwhelming force to win.
There's a name for that.
Now go count somebody else's lines,
if that's all you can think of
to do with your time.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> Here's some more guidance, plus some other things we need to resolve.
>
> 1. Cuteness has its place and time, but prolonged or misplaced, annoys:
>
> a. The message below was sent to the SUO list, but you have set things up
> so it appears to be sent to the 'Subtly Unobtrusive Ontology' list.
> OK, cute, but old, so please change your system. Also, I do
> sometimes care which list this a message was sent to,
> so it does matter.
>
> 2. In your message below, you take 7 lines building up to your statement,
> 7 lines which say nothing of value to this group.
>
> 3. Your self-created acrnonyms serve no purpose and are annoying.
> I suggest you save your creativity for things that matter.
>
> 4. Your suggestions for the two lists appear to be an attempt to be cute.
> I see no serious purpose in this message, so please stop sending messages
> like this.
>
> 5. Your thread on 'Critique of Non ...' has run for some time now.
> Please briefly summarize how it has, to date, contributed to
> the work of this group.
>
> I would also like to politely remind you that we will need to
> resolve most of these issues, or unless consensus arises to permit you to
> continue, I WILL need to start moderating your postings. I think this
> discussion has been a valuable step, but I also don't see much change in
> your actions. I will hold off on my decision until Friday morning, so
> please take these and my other messages seriously and try to resolve them
> with me. We don't need to be completed by Friday, but I need to see solid
> progress and genuine intent by then.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:12 AM
> To: Subtly Unobtrusive Ontology
> Cc: Matthew West
> Subject: SUO: Re: Compromising Proposal (CP)
>
> $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
>
> JA = Jon Awbrey
> MW = Matthew West
>
> MW: I would go for just 3 lists at present.
>
> MW: SUO-Admin - things like this discussion
>
> MW: SUO-Standards - for work on specific proposals
> for starter documents
> (might be split up later)
>
> MW: SUO-Development - for anything else.
>
> JA: Maybe it's just the 3-adic thinker in me, but I actually kind of like this one.
>
> MW: However, I think we fool ourselves if we think this is just a matter of mailing lists.
>
> JA: I 2nd that e-motion.
>
> After a week of merderously complex computation running
> my "content analytic cluster analysis" (CACA) program
> on the "volume of messages in thread" -- u do d'math --
> and a careful consideration of the critical criteria,
> I now feel adequately prepared to offer up as my final
> suggestion the following "imperative categorization" (IC),
> that we split the discussion list up in the following way:
>
> 0. Discussions that address nothing but their
> own place in the imperative categorization.
>
> 1. Discussions that address anything else.
>
> I will leave it to the judgment of the "ultimate community" (UC)
> to decide where the e-mediate discussation should have belonged.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> $~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~~$
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤