SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jim, Matthew, All,
On second thought, maybe it would be showing good sense
to take a weekend off, or at least today, and give folks
a chance to catch up without sacrifing much needed R & R.
So, see ya tomorrow, or later ...
Jon Awbrey
> 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o