SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> Your volume of postings is in excess. You didn't have
> to split this posting into 9 or 10 separate messages.
> Please respect the inboxes of the subscribers
> of this list.
Jim,
When I opened my inbox this morning, there were 16 messages
from Matthew West, that I do not mind a bit because I know
that each and every one of them is intended to contribute,
and has a chance of contributing in some incremental way,
to this task that he and I are both so passionate about.
Sadly, I cannot say the same thing about of your off-list message to me,
which is largely obstructive to any form of constructive, organized, and
productive work on the Procedure discussion that we are having, not to
mention to the overall progress toward a Standard Upper Ontology.
The reasons for posting an analytic series of topic headers,
for logging in the Archive, along with discussion-prompting
advanced organizers, is evident to anybody who is paying
due attention to the ongoing discussion, and requires
no further explanation from me.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o