SUO: Re: Meta*Question
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John,
Yes, we all have our personal ethic, norm, inner voice, daimon, whatever.
You follow yours, I follow mine, mostly I'd be happy with that, as you say,
"until" a problem arises. A problem has arisen. At any rate -- slow ball,
fast ball, curve ball -- I see a foul, and so I must call it as I see it.
There is a fundamental practical contradiction in the conduct of this Group.
One of the things that I dislike about off-list chatter about
official issues is that I that always end up having to repeat
the same thing again on list, and I usually always express it
even worse the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, ..., infinty^th time around.
So I think this time I'll just excerpt what I alrady said:
Note 1.
sorry, slip of the fingers caused me to offlist you.
what you say is something that i would have believed
three years ago, but it just aint so on present data.
there is a fundamental practical contradiction between
the explicit rules and the implicit rules in this group,
and until a few more people start to see it, we will get
absolutely no real work done of any kind. i tried to make
it obvious by juxtaposing jim's directive to me with a post
from you of 7th degree imp-of-an-imp relevance to the central
problem, but you picked the 'silence assents' option, which was
the only one that i had not expected from you.
Note 2.
when you get done with doctrines about what "thou shalt not do",
you are always free to undertake any constructive substantive
activity you can think of. i am still waiting for your 2nd
on my motion to adopt the pragmatic maxim as rule number 1.
whether you tumble to it or not, i am doing constructive
work under this cover, and until it becomes obvious that
you can't build a "modern" ontology without a research
base and expertise in multiple relevant domains, this
horse is doa, and all i can do is try to educate the
riders up to speed about what computer science and
about 20 other subjects really are about in 2003.
we have quite a long ways to go with that, and
you 'could' help lots, but you are not facing
the realities of what we really have here.
it is mostly opportunities being wasted,
not time.
Note 3.
totally serious -- i don't say "i move" in that
context without meaning it. what do you think
will happen?
you know we are never going to have any progress as long
as jim restricts discussion, at the behest of [whoever],
whether capriciously or consistently, to the albatrosses
of current starter docs that we have. rk's iff could be
made sense of, bit by bit, but you have to start at the
bottom with mac lane or something, not in stratos city.
but jim doesn't even know enough about it to know that
almost everything i talk about is just nuts and bolts
workaday concrete categories done up for the millions
without expecting them all to bow down and worship
it instead of just working with it. i have been
converting logic into functional and computable
form since about 1980, but the scl crowd can't
even figure out that the functional interp is
sine qua non for doing anything significant.
everybody in math and theoretical comp sci,
as opposed to phil of math, knows this.
That is just how I see it.
My daimon made me say it.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> The guidelines I follow are the same ones that I proposed when
> the question about limiting the number of email postings was
> discussed a couple of months ago (sometime in August, I think):
>
> 1. Limit the number of new topics that any single subscriber
> may initiate to a small number per day -- no more than 2 or 3.
>
> 2. But allow a larger number of replies to ongoing discussions --
> especially permit follow-up responses to direct questions
> and ongoing debates.
>
> I find it very difficult to navigate the SUO archive, so I wasn't
> able to retrieve the exact thread. But the discussion about
> limiting the number of postings seemed to get resolved or put
> aside, and no further discussion on this topic was pursued.
>
> But that is the principle I follow: don't clutter the list with
> too many new topics, but respond when somebody addresses you.
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o