Sam was kind enough to give me some great advice as it pertains to the increased venue capabilities at Yahoo groups, etc. When I get "set up" there, I'll share the url with the membership here. Now I fear I'm spending too much time addressing the inadequate presentation capabilities here at Google Groups... at least for my purposes. PLEASE forgive me, as I am new to this networking stuff. Any who, my thanks to Ornamentalmind & Adrian for the "solid-on" input... their critiques seem fair & balanced enough for me to take heed and reassess the manner of this model's dissemination. The "piece meal" fashion was taken so as not to "overwhelm."
As "intuitive" as we've tried to make the pubic model, it is nevertheless comprised of numerous linked architectures. It is better, as Adrian has pointed out, that I just lay it out in one fell swoop and let the chips fall where they may. Some will get, other may not, but the awareness will be gotten at any rate. and we won't have to address the individual questions accept for "suggested readings pages" linked with the FAQs. I probably need to begin with a full overview, so people can make their initial assessment as to whether it is "worth" their efforts at internalization. It truly is, but that's everyone's individual "call." We are wanting to empower as many as will make the efforts necessary, but that may resolve itself as those who have indeed profited from its internalization witness to that effect. We thus far have but a scant number who can attest to the model impetus.I'll be keeping "in touch" but my posts are not meeting with the kinds of response for which we were hoping. I'm hearing some frustration & confusion - I think not including the "graphics" from the onset is part of the problem, and as Adrian was quick to point out, "URLS, URLS, URLS." Of course, he's right, but I got summarily booted from the group MIND"S EYE for even suggesting a link... I understand there is "zero tolerance" for even perceived "spam" in this group. I felt this might be the case with most groups at Google, but I was in error regarding this assessment... so, I'll spare the group any further "piecemeal posts" and create a new group / blog where the whole model is displayed in its entirety (except for the implicate base, I can only provide an example of that - it has to do with proprietary concerns, etc.... after our prototype is realized, thenn, I can probably share the whole "implicate base") Again, my best to all the membership... I'll stay "in touch" - but those with whom I found displeasure can sigh a sense of relief and they can go on,trying to "hijack" the group as Adrian put it so well. Certainly, Sam wouldn't stand for it, so is Georges his brother-in-law or something? What keeps the membership from policing its ranks? Honestly, Georges' last post concerning my "intrusion" was almost laughable and was reminiscent of Nixon's "Checkers Speech." Still, my efforts have disheartened a few, and quite frankly, that ain't me!!! I have other "options" and some of these guys are probably just tryin' to find a home, & you guys are "A-okay" for puttin' up with them, even if I sense that you're somewhat disgruntled with their online behaviors. We all have our crosses to bear, so be kind, and extend the olive branch to Georges & "the other guy," from me as well... I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. Bye for now. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
