I ll be happy to take any further discussion offlist, provided comments are also offered offlist
I don think you have ever addressed offlist any comment in relation to the snippets you quoted in your first post under this thread
PY>>>Thank you for the longish reply,
your post was 900+ words, mine 600+ words if I count correctly...
sorry I top posted
PY >>>Youshould not have had to be defensive, though, as I specifically said
that I was not making value judgments on whether or not the above
snippets or the posts they came from are true, correct, good or
otherwise ... but rather, they were just inappropriate for this forum
(however, if you still want to know why, you can still write me
offline to find out.)
I suggested that snippets you selected were not a good example
as they had been taken out of context of otherwise appropriate posts (ie, post
relating to this forum as per the charter) , and that such examples were not
indicating the inappropriateness of my posts, rather the inability to grasp the context
(while agreeing that they were conversational in nature).
I also realise that the mistake is common practice in ontological circles (ie do not understand context and relevance in full
even when its dead obvious) and therefore the reply/discussion pertains to the online forum as well,
The nature of inquiry (and non monotonic reasoning) is rooted in natural curiousity and personal impulses to know stuff -
instead, I invited you to consider the snippets as part of discourse as a whole, in particular in the context
of the interesting topics they touched upon, although briefly and partially inarticulately because of the
conversational nature of the dialog in this forum
That said, I agree it would be nice to be able to structure discourse on this forum more form, its hard to follow even the good stuff-
PY That said, I wasn't expecting your response on the list ... (nor the
others that responded to yours). You surprised me!
I was not expecting you to flag snippets of discourse as 'you cant say that here', despite the obvious
conformance to the charter, or at least, a different interpretation of it? - also, you seem to apply
selectively - ie you take my posts as example, and not the others - if you want to point finger, then please
PY On the subject of "Tighter control of ontolog forum" ... I was only
imploring everyone to exercise tighter control and self-regulate
themselves to make sure postings are relevant to our charter, focused,
and of high professional quality ... evidently I didn't get too far,
with such a complex message, because even the simple message of
"please email me offline ... let's not burden the rest of the
community" was not properly understood.
that was probably because instructions are best listed at the top of the message (I never got to point 7 cause
I had read enough to warrant an online reply by point 6. ) Also, I dont think its fair to offer
a (malicious?) mischaracterization of my posts (due to a of choice of not reading them in the context of the whole post, )
to the list, and request that I defend it offline. unfair play.
PY You surprised me again, when you said that people who wanted to
follow-up with you wanted to do it off this list, and you concurred
that this is not the right place for it (although for a reason that
totally differs from mine.)
People do contact me offline from time to time suggesting that there is 'thought control' and censoring of good ideas
happening in this forum
Certain parts of discourse are systematically eradicated/ignored with silly suggestions that they are not appropriate,
while there is wide consensus that they they are in fact central (despite some discrepancies on form perhaps).
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Peter
> Thanks for the friendly reminder (I know some people would like to rescrict
> the conversation on this list to a single point of view)
> Ontlogical freedom was indeed a discussion that is considered off topic in
> this mail,
> and indeed discouraged by some, with all sorts of intimidations.
> Some people write to me offlist indeed saying that they do want to follow up
> the topic some of my posts
> but they prefer to do it offlist, since the list seems to obliterate
> systematically vital portions of the discourse
> Plurality comes with the tradeoff that contributions come from different
> backgrounds, and in different languages
> therefore I agree they may not conform to an anglosaxon matematicians view
> of what a post on ontlog should look like
> they are still part of discourse
> In global scientific communities we strive to practice tolerance to the
> views of others everyday, and when they are insufficinetly well formulated
> we ignore them/disregard them if we cant do anythign to improve them
> Some people kindly reply to their post elevating the tone adding their
> tuppence and helpingto make
> sure the post comes back in line with the main topic when it sometimes
> becomes off course, others simply complain about it.
> Pretty much shows their attitude.
> The post you mention, in their entirety, are perfectly in line with the
> forum guidelines, expect perhaps
> for the few sentences you quoted, instead they should be read in the context
> of the thread, better still
> in the context of other threads
> But I am aware that context is indeed not within the scope of everybody's
> This is a terrible misrepresentation if you consider it in ontological terms
> the 'rant on pseudoscience' is providing some context to some posts on new
> logic/chinese logic thread, and took off as
> an extremely interesting and lenghty discussion on complexity, eetc, which
> in turn opened up a discussion on infinity etc
> I know, and I agree, that my posts are not always well formed, thats
> probably cause I post to this list while reading and writing simoultaneously
> lots of others stuff, will make it a point for later to try to avoid short
> outbursts of backfound intellectual activity
> (but at least, I am alive mate)
> I understand that some people do not consider important philosophu of
> science underpinnings/digression as the focus of their work
> Shouldnt the relevance of a post be considered based on its entirely and in
> relation to other posts, rather than in the introductory sentences alone:?
> (But this is a typical example that also reflects directly in some of the
> shortcomings of the semantic web,)
> My homework in certain subjects (phiosophy, mathematics) are only a
> background component to my current work
> is indeed posting to the list
> I have never seen one single post by Christ Welty on this forum on any topic
> can you point me to his contribution to discourse here? I would love to read
> some of his thoughts
> He probabbly does not like to find a full inbox when he gets back to his
> desk, and gets upset
> as far as I can tell, he only read the first line of each - which is
> But I see no point in dealing complaints of people who hardly read
> nor write anything ever at all,
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Coming right up is the anniversary of ChrisWelty's message (below)
>> that actually served as a wake up call to me this time last year.
>> While Chris probably meant to be sterner, I will just interpret it as
>> a reminder that while we keep the [ontolog-forum] list open, we also
>> need to ensure that it stays relevant, focused and maintains its
>> 1. I have, of late, received some complaints again, that the ontolog
>> forum has been overloaded with too many off-topic notes that
>> contribute very little to the subject of ontology and its
>> applications. Sadly, for the last month or two, we have been losing
>> more members than gaining new ones. Every time some irrelevant
>> conversation thread grows, I see people unsubscribing. As one of the
>> complaint messages read: " ... Interest in a list wanes quickly when
>> only one post in dozens is worth reading. Unfortunately, this seems
>> to be the norm ..."
>> 2. We better do something, quick, before we lose the community as we knew
>> 3. Since we would prefer to keep this an open forum without filtering
>> by moderators, I would like to, once again, ask members of the
>> community to self-regulate their posts to ensure that they:
>> (i) are relevant to the Ontolog Charter and consistent with the
>> Ontolog member contribution policies
>> (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidZBG) , and
>> (ii) are of the quality expected of real professionals in this field.
>> 4. I will use a few recently posted examples to show what we need to
>> *avoid* ...
>> (A) "thanks to a link posted in another forum ... I know it may be
>> too far a philosophical push fror some on this list ... I am rushing
>> around and dont have much time to study/discuss in depth ... i hope it
>> is of interest, so posting ..."
>> [ppy] comment: shouldn't this poster pause, and think again (maybe do
>> some more homework) before making this post?
>> Please: make sure postings are relevant, focused and are of high
>> quality. If you don't think it belongs here, or if you haven't thought
>> the message through enough, please take your time.
>> (B) "... I found your paper on Infinity ... I dont have the capacity
>> to study in detail, wonder if you could provide a plain english
>> synopsis with your main conclusion for the layperson, and maybe one
>> straight answer from your pov"
>> [ppy] comment: this is a personal message, and should have been sent
>> to the author of the Infinity paper offline ... again, why would the
>> poster want to impose on hundreds of others who may or may not have
>> the same need?
>> Please: ensure that personal remarks and very detailed questions about
>> narrow topics should be discussed offline.
>> (C) "stop hiring and putting people who have very narrow views of the
>> world in charge of multibillion research programmes"
>> [ppy] comment: this looks more like something one would put on a
>> placard in a political demonstration. Since our general approach is
>> scientific and engineering (and not political), a conversation of this
>> sort is probably more relevant at a different forum.
>> Please: this forum is for discourse in science and engineering, not
>> (D) "Concept of infinite and especially transfinite is only
>> comprehensible by mind consciousness which is of course all pervading
>> (manas+Buddhi+THAT=INFINITE) meaning that which is beyond but
>> inclusive of mind, intellect and THAT (implying beyond connotations)
>> [ppy] comment: remembering that by Ontology we mean ontology for
>> information science, and not the branch of philosophy that is a part
>> of metaphysics, I have to say that this kind of discussion is just
>> *not* what the [ontolog-forum] is chartered to make.
>> Please: again, make sure postings are relevant, focused and are of high
>> 5. Kindly note that I am not making value judgments on whether or not
>> the above snippets or the posts they came from are true, correct, good
>> or otherwise ... but rather, they are just inappropriate for this
>> forum, and whoever posted them and sent them to the inboxes of the
>> seven hundred or so members of the [ontolog-forum] is somewhat
>> reckless, and not really helping with the open collaborative spirit
>> that the community has set out to build.
>> 6. People who want to post those kind of messages (ones that are not
>> relevant to this forum) and to be heard can well do so through
>> blogging, tweeting, or posting them to other more appropriate forums
>> and venues. I am cordially requesting that you please take those
>> messages elsewhere. ... And, for those who don't care about the
>> community as we knew it, please start your own community (and build it
>> to whatever way you want it to be), just don't try to hijack ours!
>> 7. Anyone who can't agree to "self-regulate" or who doesn't think the
>> examples I cited were inappropriate, please email me offline (I could
>> well be mistaken ... but let's not burden the rest of the community.)
>> Thank you for your attention.
>> Best regards. =ppy
>> Peter Yim
>> Co-convener, ONTOLOG
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Chris Welty <cawelty@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > ... I think the [...] continuing nonsense in this forum - which make it
>> > the
>> > butt of many jokes and keeps a lot of otherwise serious ontology people
>> > away (I
>> > include myself in this category, you may argue with the "otherwise
>> > serious" bit)
>> > - are evidence that the open model doesn't work here.
>> > ...
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Paola Di Maio
> “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
> Albert Einstein
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paola Di Maio
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)