W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001


From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:28:01 -0500
Message-ID: <3A7456A1.9B41A459@oakland.edu>
To: Robert Meersman <Robert.Meersman@vub.ac.be>
CC: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, Stand Up Ontology <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, Matthew West <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>, Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>

Robert Meersman wrote:
> At 28-01-01 02:15, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >
> > Because this point is really important,
> > and I have already failed to convey it,
> > as far as I can tell, in several other
> > ways that I have tried up to this point,
> > I am going to try and say it another way,
> > and this time focus on a single aspect
> > of the underlying problem, as I see it.
> Excuse me.
> I just joined this list.
> Is this statement typical?

Hi, Robert,

I will assume that when you ask "Is this statement typical?"
that you are not trying to be cute in a self-ir/reverent way,
but that you are referring to the statement of mine that you
cited as justly precursive to yours.

Each person here is responsible for the way that he or she conducts
his or her own speech, indeed, for the way that he or she communes
with his or her own thoughts, if not to mention, for the moment,
the often stormed-tossed relation-ship between that love-born
and strife-torn twainship of parallel narratives about this,
our common and sheared uni-di-trans-verse.  And so I shall
limit myself to commenting on my own contributions to the
general siren-ship and steerage of this very motley crew.

No, I cannot say that this statement of mine is "typical",
but only because I have lost the whereabouts of where the
proto-type lies, whether or not I ever knew its location,
and whether or not it lies or says soothly, but I can tell
you that it is pretty close to being perfectly "average",
at least, in its intention, as I was "meaning" to place it
right about in the middle of the range of those extremes
over which I am forced or given to range.

As a matter of fact, this particular satement was intended to be
a clarification, a correction, and a "toning down" of a previous
attempt to address its same subject, but whether any satement
does indeed succeed in its intent is not for that satement,
or its sater, to say.

> Next, are messages with subject "Re:Signation" to be taken seriously?
> Or perhaps I just happened to join at a more lighthearted moment?

All of my messages are meant to be taken
just in the spirit that they are given,
in the Rx for that delirium that finds
itself compounded, in equal measure,
of the sublime and the ridiculous,
that we call our human,
all too human

And, in that humor, as you well know, the most serious stuff
will often get said in the most lighthearted jokes, for that
is the form of ducking and covering that this steersman-ship
of humanity frequently needs to protect the hatchlink of its
most sensitive cargoes.

That particular subject line has a history -- as all of them do --
and since you missed it, I will repeat the record of it for you --
being "in medias res" myself, my sympathies are with you, still,
its history precedes me, so here is just where I lately came in:


> Thx! And pls, hopefully no offense given.

None accepted.

Jon Awbrey

Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 12:27:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:36 UTC