SUO: Re: Epi*Question
E*Q. Note 2
MW = Matthew West
MW: OK. Stand by for what I hope will
be seen as constructive criticism.
MW: I will speak strictly personally, since it
would be inappropriate to assume others see
things in the same way.
MW: For me the issue with your postings is not to do with the proposal
that we need to look at basic scientific, math, and Comp Sci knowledge
as the start point. I agree with you, and generally in fact with most
of the points that I can discern you are making. And I am content you
slow read whatever you like onto the Ontology List. I try to at least
note the subjects you think worthy of this treatment.
MW: For me the problem is how you do it, and in particular the
bandwidth you consume. Taking myself, I can probably afford
about 1 hour a day going through what is on the SUO lists and
contributing to SUO deliverables like the Procedures Document.
I usually find that at least half that time, and often more is
spent processing your posts. This detracts from what I might
I have not noticed any lack of contribution on your part.
I have my "Issues" with the LIS starter document and with
the Procedure Draft in hand, of course, but no one would be
justified in calling you a purely Nominal Repsondent when it
comes to responding to other people's issues. Change is another
matter, for sure, but I'm accustomed to the requirements of proof.
And it may be beyond my powers to prove some things to some people,
but that is just life as I have always known it.
MW: If I might indulge in an analogy, part of the issue is the nature
of some of your posts, which are like an unbalanced meal, where
the content is mostly garnish with very little meat. I know I
often struggle to discern the point you are making in some posts,
and often find I have given up before I have found it. It would
help me if you followed the maxims for a good speech "tell them
what your going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you've
Analogies I like.
Tastes differ. No one style of cuisine will please every palate.
I do try to vary the menu. If that involves garnish, jalapenos,
and a decorative radish blossom not really intended for human
consumption, then so be it. You can always spend your lunch
hour in the IFF Meat Locker chipping away with an icepick
at cryonic biff jerky, if that is more to your taste.
At least I grok the need for preparation, and wok at
it to the degree (> -273 C) of my culinary skills.
If you work at the reading, then know that I work at the writing,
and not for the sake of cryptography, but for clarity and vigour.
Yes, one table's flambé will be another table's flash in the pan,
when it comes to that, but that is a matter of different courses.
MW: Sometimes I am just baffled. Your recent series of posts apparently
just giving headings for terms that might need definition seems to me
to achieve very little. What I know I would have appreciated is if you
had offered to keep privately a list of terms that you thought particularly
significant and develop definitions for them that might go towards an overall
SUO Glossary as a possible SUO deliverable on the web site.
We already have two or three Ontologies or Metontologies that were
evidently cooked up by something like the Method you describe here.
To my taste and digestion, it is exactly this means of preparation
that makes them so utterly unpalatable and lacking in the vitamins
of ontological nutrition that working people in working fields all
demand as their Minimum Daily Requirements.
My style of cooking is Pot Luck Mongolian Barbecue, not TV Dinners.
It depends a lot on what the assembled company brings to the table.
Until I had spent a warm-up interval of time collecting and noting
the "high frequency" words -- the most often used, I mean, and oft
the shrillest, too -- along with a sprinkling of more choice words
that I observed doing more work in the play of conversation than I
otherwise might've suspected on purely philosophical grounds, like
"appplaud" or "issue" or "modern", well, in seeking the words that
do, as poets and programmers all must do, words that do are always
doing what they do in just the places where you find them doing it,
and they do just what they do in just the ways that one finds them
doing it. Don't they?
MW: Yet you often make what I find good and useful
contributions. Most of your comments on the
procedures document have been very helpful,
and I think in particular of the two posts
you made working through the current draft.
These I really appreciate.
MW: Yours in good faith.
Good service is customarily recognized with
a gratuity of approximately 15-20% of the tab.
So my expectations are, well, proportionate.