SUO: RE: yet abother @tack of the clones
Jon,
Per your request, I am posting the correspondence below to the main list.
This gives your explanation for why you did not respond to Matthew's direct
request to reduce the volume of postings to 5 per day.
I've previously posted a message summarizing my thoughts thus far on your
postings. Viz. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11925.html
Beyond this, I agree with others (e.g. Matthew West and John Sowa) that
simply reducing the volume of postings per day would be helpful. During
November, you posted an average of 8.3 messages per day. So, your offer to
"limit" postings to 10 per day would not reduce volume. I agree with Matthew
and John that it would be helpful to limit everyone to 5 postings per day.
I take you at your word that you are sincerely trying to help the group make
progress. I would agree that the group needs to develop a common dictionary
for certain important, technical terms. However, I doubt that your posting
of so many pro forma entries for new words per day is really helping the
group make progress.
Many of the terms you are posting are politically oriented rather than
technically oriented, and your postings on these seem fairly silly and/or
polemical... E.g. your recent pro form postings on "Definition of
Leadership", "Definition of Respect", "Definition of Authority", "Definition
of Merger", etc.
I do not think the group needs to spend time defining such terms, at this
point -- if necessary we can use the definitions that are already available
in Webster's or WordNet, or we can refer to Robert's Rules of Order.
On the other hand, I would agree that it could be relevant to have a
technical discussion about how such terms might eventually be captured
within an ontological framework.
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 5:12 PM
> To: Philip Jackson
> Subject: Re: yet abother @tack of the clones
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> phil,
>
> please try to understand, my posts to the suo list are
> by and large intended to advance the state of the work
> toward the goal in the par. so i do not feel bad about
> trying to do as much work as possible toward this goal.
> if you think that my attempts fail by and large to do
> this, the say so on list, give reasons why, what you
> think would work better, trying of course to propose
> things that have not already been tried and failed,
> and so on. i have said repeatedly that i will work
> under whatever rules the group achieves consensus
> about, but that is real consensus, not just what
> nobody is around to object to on a thanksgiving
> weekend, jim's usual method of assessing consent.
>
> no more off list -- i really do have a life --
> and i have just said exactly the same thing
> to 3 off-listers already. copy this in full
> and respond on list if you wish to continue.
> yes, the dialogue will be a bit cramped on
> my part, since i am the only person who has
> so far volunteered to limit postings.
>
> jon
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Philip Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Matthew and Jim accepted your "offer" to limit your postings to
> 10 per day
> > thinking that it would be a reduction in volume. However, in
> fact 10 per day
> > would be an increase in volume. Matthew was not attempting to
> "reneg", but
> > to see if you were sincere in offering to reduce volume. Your
> not replying
> > to his direct question indicates you were not sincere in
> offering to reduce
> > volume.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:44 PM
> > > To: Philip Jackson
> > > Subject: Re: yet abother @tack of the clones
> > >
> > >
> > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > >
> > > i had already offered to limit my postings to 10,
> > > and jim accepted the offer. then suddenly that
> > > was not good enough. matthew's attempt to reneg
> > > was an insult.
> > >
> > > jon awbrey
> > >
> > > Philip Jackson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jon,
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > i cannot get a straight answer to a direct question
> > > > > out of matthew west --
> > > >
> > > > Actually Matthew asked you a direct question, and apparently
> > > > you have not provided a straight answer to it. The question
> > > > was, will you limit your postings to 5 per day? (Assuming
> > > > this limit applies to everyone.)
> > > >
> > > > Phil
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>