To begin with, no message that does not clearly identify the sender
should not appear on the list. "psp"
<psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> is not a clear ID.|
I for one will just filter these messages out.
At 11/21/2005 08:13 PM, you wrote:
I take that as a vote to accept his postings.
In answer to the question:
"why would somebody want to
(1) there is no possibility of silencing
him. He has for years posted the same material to any number of
different listservers, where his comments are as irrelevant to them
as they are to our efforts. Every listserver has a purpose and
people who use listservers to push their opinions on people who don't
want to hear them are not performing any constructive purpose.
(2) we welcome every comment that is in fact relevant to the
efforts we are attempting. But his attitude is summed up in his
"This is why ONTAC and all other such
government-supported activities should be terminated. "
. . . I think you will agree that
that does not advance any project of the ONTACWG?
(3) I have had notes from serious participants saying that they
will have to leave if the number of irrelevant postings is not reduced,
and some specifically mentioned PSP.
(4) if you think that he will ever be willing to focus on actual
constructive action, I suggest that you read his blogs and try to engage
him in a rational dialog on some topic.
(5) there are other listservers that deal specifically with the
topics that Dr. Prueitt wants to discuss, but ours is not one of them and
he will not confine his postings to them
this is not to say that there is absolutely nothing
of interest in what he is saying. It is just completely unrelated
to the serious constructive efforts we are making. The ONTACWG is
not a discussion group, it is a working group, and its purpose is to
build information artifacts that were useful for relating knowledge
classification systems to each other. As a volunteer group we have
extremely limited time in which to do the complicated work that is
required to achieve our goals, and every distraction reduces our chances
of success. I believe that the goals are important. I have
seen one ontology study group disintegrate because of multiple irrelevant
postings like that of Dr. Prueitt, and I am determined that that will not
be the fate of this group.
The web is very large, and he has his own blog, to which he
provides many pointers in postings around the web. He has a
forum. The ONTACWG does not have to become just another.
260 Industrial Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Mail Stop: MNJE
mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barnett,
Dee CSM USA Directorate of Doctrine
- Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 6:53 PM
- To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
- Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Off-topic postings
- You all are the subject matter experts here. Most
of what you are saying, I barely get. I am in the WG because of my
involvement in an Army project. As I try to read all of this,
though, his comments and responses are as valid as any others, so why
would somebody want to silence him?
- Dee K. Barnett CSM (R)
- Contractor, ASRC Communications
- Intelligence Support to Counter IED
- Directorate of Doctrine
- US Army Intelligence Center
- Comm: 520-538-1182
- DSN: 879-1182
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Cassidy, Patrick J.
- Sent: Mon 11/21/2005 10:10
- To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
- Subject: [ontac-forum] Off-topic postings
- In response to a note to him concerning
the content of his postings, Paul Prueitt has requested that the members
of the ONTACWG explicitly state whether they want to see more postings
- [PSP] I am happy to not make anymore
posts if the majority of those in the working group who wish to vote will
ask this of me. So please vote - but do it publicly.
- Since we have over 100 members, some of
whom have already expressed to me their wish that postings be fewer and
adhere more closely to the purposes for which the working groups was
created, it would produce less distracting email if the process were
inverted -- those who **do** wish to receive more postings from Paul
Prueitt (PSP), may send a note publicly to the list or, if you prefer not
to contribute to excessive email for other members, you can send a note
to both myself and to Paul Prueitt directly. This question will
remain open until Tuesday night, and I will post the result on
- If fewer than 25 members express a
desire to see additional postings from Paul Prueitt, I would suggest that
those discussions be conducted via a direct e-mail list of interested
individuals. If 25 or more, the question will be presented as a
formal vote for the entire group.
- Any decisions I take can be reversed by
a majority vote of the members of ONTACWG.
- Patrick Cassidy
- MITRE Corporation
- 260 Industrial Way
- Eatontown, NJ 07724
- Mail Stop: MNJE
- Phone: 732-578-6340
- Cell: 908-565-4053
- Fax: 732-578-6012
- Email: pcassidy at mitre.org
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland
4105 Hornbake Library
College Park, MD 20742-4345
Office: 301-405-2037 Home:
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/