[SCL] Re: zzz standard ...

[Murray Altheim]

[executive summary: this message bears no SCL technical content, so
you can skip it unless interested. It is my last message on the subject.]

Bill Andersen wrote:
> Hi, Murray...
> 
> I'm sorry my conduct has offended you.  Your comments are good ones so
> I'll address them below...
> 
> On Jan 1, 2004, at 1852, Murray Altheim wrote:
> 
>>Bill,
>>
>>Exactly where do you derive the authority to talk to anyone that way?
>>Who positioned you as the arbiter of what is appropriate communication
>>around here? I don't remember there being a vote, and your continued
>>calls for censorship (either of Jon, or of political views you disagree
>>with) are certainly going to be ignored by anyone who doesn't respond
>>to military-order style demands. We're not in the military here.
> 
> Correct on at least the last count.

I made only two points (the rest were questions), with the first one
being that people were not going to keep quiet because you demand they
do. I hope I'm correct on both counts.

> This list exists because of a meeting held three years ago at Texas A&M 
> at
> which Chris Menzel, Pat Hayes, John Sowa, and others were present, the
> object being to provide a firm foundation for KIF-like languages.  Then 
> the
> goal expanded to provide a common platform for FO languages to include 
> KIF,
> CGIF, and any others that could be made compatible.

I understand both the origins and the purpose of this list.

> Just what is it in Jon Awbrey's comments that leads you to believe that 
> he
> is in any way interested in contributing to the success of *this* goal?

I don't feel I'm in a position, nor are you, to judge Jon's interests.
As far as I know, his interests are in pushing the group of people to
agree with his views on ontology. If history shows that Pat and John
are wrong and Jon right, which may very well be the case, the fact that
he was just forcibly ejected from this list will seem in retrospect not
only an embarrassment, but perhaps show that the SCL/CL effort was in
some way profoundly flawed. Now, I'm in no position to judge that, but I
do believe that Jon represents an alternate viewpoint from Pat and John,
and one that I don't think is taken seriously enough, probably because
of Jon's difficulties in communication. I did note that the discussion
between John and Jon over the past day or so on formal semantics produced
a healthy and interesting dialogue. With Jon now gone, that kind of
feedback is now gone.

> On to the political.  Pat made an unsolicited comment about the current
> administration in this country with which I happened not to agree.  But
> my agreement or disagreement is utterly irrelevant -- I would have 
> voiced
> my objection to the use of this list for *any* form of political 
> commentary.
> I respect Pat's right to believe whatever he wants and had he said that 
> in
> a private venue I would be glad to talk about it with him, but *this* 
> list
> is not the place.  Pat apologized for what he said and perhaps I should 
> not
> have responded as harshly as I did, but that's old news now.

That's ridiculous. Pat's comment consisted of one sentence. If you
are so unable to assent to allowing one sentence of opinion among
the volumes of things said, perhaps Saudi Arabia is more suitable
an environment. This idea that there are "public" and "private"
boundaries over what can be said here is something you are imposing
on others. This list's ability to conduct the technical business
can certainly survive a few quips about politics and religion now
and then. The question is, can you?

Put it this way, if I want to take a 4K technical message and finish
it off with a quip about Bush, I'm certainly not asking anyone's
permission, nor should I need to.

>>Just because some people commonly talk to others rudely on this list
>>doesn't license everyone to. This is the *least* civil list I've ever
>>been party to, second probably only to some news groups I remember
>>from back in the mid 1980s, and they were discussing religion.
> 
> 
> I do not mean to be rude at all but I have watched Jon singlehandedly 
> bring
> down the IEEE SUO activity by hogging all the bandwidth with his posts. 
>   I
> have no intention of sitting around idly while he does the same here.  
> As
> Pat has suggested, the prognosis for this sort of behavior being 
> tolerated
> on this list is not good and I agree with him.

Again, "you have no intention"? Are you the arbiter?

As for bringing down the SUO activity, I look back at the archives
and don't see that there's been a heck of a lot of progress in its
entire history. You blame that on Jon? Really?

> Yes, my comment was a bit angry in tone, but I stand by what I said.  
> Any
> positive contribution to the work of this list from any quarter, 
> including
> from Jon, is to be welcomed.  If he, however, insists of taking up 
> valuable
> time (are you considering how much time Pat and Chris have put into all 
> of
> this???) and deflecting energy and attention from the evaluation of the
> concrete proposed documents we have in front of us by leading us off on 
> a
> discussion of Peirce and semiotics, then I am obligated to call foul and
> ask of him that he either contribute to *this* work or leave the list.

You are "obliged"? By whom? Are you the judge?

> I have nothing personally against Jon.  He's certainly a bright guy 
> with a
> lot of experience and knowledge.  He seems pleasant enough.  And I 
> meant what
> I said to him in earnest, even if it was angry at the time -- If he has 
> a
> better idea then he should pursue it alone or with other interested 
> parties.
> He should not, however, be allowed to force this on folks who don't 
> share
> his personal interests and biases.

He "should not be allowed"? Are you the police?

----

I guess if you could step back and listen to yourself for a moment
you might realize what I'm reacting to. If the list maintainer cannot
get Jon to conform to the list's etiquette, it's up to that person
to discuss with the person and take whatever action is deemed necessary.
But you are not that person (so far as I know). You (so far as I know)
have no more authority than myself or Jon Awbrey. Yet your language
sugggests that you are a rank above. We are not your subordinates;
there is no hierarchy here. I believe that Jon has difficulties in
communication, but he's probably more qualified than about five of
us combined in the area of logic. And now his voice on this list is
silenced, because some of us couldn't either hit Delete, add him to
their .kill file, email filter, whatever. Yes, his communication is
sometimes difficult, but so is John and Pat's. Just differently
difficult. We're all human and have very human faults. We all put up
with people because they have value, sometimes in proportion to their
difficulty. I've had as much difficulty understanding Jon as anyone,
and I've put in *many* hours trying, both publicly and privately. But
I've always believed his ideas were of real, essential value. If at
any point someone believes my value is less than my difficulty, all
they need do is ask and I'm gone. The community is only lessened by
such actions, though.

> I, for one, am not a fan of the use of DL for doing ontology.  Do I 
> spend
> all my days flooding the DL lists with my many reasons for not liking 
> DLs?
> No, I don't.  They have work to do -- let them do it.  We have work to 
> do
> here and all I propose is that we be left alone to do it.

Jon was not trying to shut this list down. He was trying to correct
what he thought were errors. Some of his comments were very valuable.
You apparently had shut your ears to the times his input was taken
seriously and considered appropriately. Yes, he ran the risk and has
now paid. He may not have had any choice -- not everyone is capable
of acting in accordance with strict rules. Look at some of history's
most important thinkers. Like Peirce, even. They often didn't fit in.
I believe we owe both them and ourselves the benefit of the doubt,
as to exclude people like Jon we are potentially shutting out another
potentially-significant thinker. I believe as a human, humane community
we have a responsibility to *try* to help people work out their
difficulties in communication rather than shut them up in some
intellectual leper colony. You may not feel so generous about Jon as
I do, but you have no right to shut him up.

>    .bill
> 
> PS - And yes, I'm still de-militarizing myself after spending most of 
> the
> year in the Army.  I would have much preferred to stay home.  :-D

Time for a gin and tonic. As for this thread, it's my last message
on it, since I believe we've taken up enough bandwidth, and Jon is
now gone, the battle over. The situation only makes me quite sad,
as it hardly marks the New Year with any sense of generosity,
forebearance, patience, or grace, things in short supply.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

  "A household whose car travels 40 miles per gallon (family saloon
   car) instead of only 20 miles per gallon (a typical 4-wheel drive)
   saves in one year the energy equivalent to recycling all of its
   glass bottles for 400 years."                -- Dr Jan Kooijman
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3355927.stm