🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM> Metafont Consultant Account writes:
-- 
-- The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger
-- or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a
-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
-- points of view with machine assistance.
-- 
-- Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available

I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi.  This
is something I first read "Lives of a Cell" (I think) by Lewis Thomas
in an essay of his "On Committees."  I heard it figured prominently in
Shockwave Rider, but I don't remember learning much about it there.
Still, Bruner's profuse acknowledgements of Toffler made me wonder if
he of course got it from Toffler.  Future Shock does indeed have some
obscure reference to it, which I haven't run down yet.

It's apparently a method for predicting the future by asking a bunch
of experts.  This method was devised, what, 25 years ago?  It sounds
like a perfect match for email, newsgroups, groupware, but was devised
long before any of this was even within shouting distance!

The goal of the method was to get the group of informed people to
converge in their prognostications.  A Facilitator devised a
questionnaire and had each person fill it out and return it to him.
These were copied and distributed to all.  Then a second round took
place where everyone answered the questionnaire again.  Apparently,
after a small number of cycles, a fairly useful consensus often
emerged that subsequently proved to be largely on target.

I'm talking more than I know here.  Sounds like some kind of Focus
Group?  Interesting though.
	J.R. Prohaska
	Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California  (415) 336 2502
	Domain:  prohaska@sun.com
	USnail:  Box 9022, Stanford, CA  94305

From article <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM>, by xanthian@saturn.ads.com (Metafont Consultant Account):
> 
> The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger
> or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a
> very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
> of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
> points of view with machine assistance.
> 
> One of the sidelights resulting from this groupware example is that it
> shows the need for a "minimalist" definition of exactly what
> constitutes "groupware".  In my own opinion, while telecommunications
> and live video may be "nice to have", much more of interest to me
> would be starting with groupware assistance for a meeting around a
> common table.  The organization and recall of concepts, arguments, and
> alternatives for a group considering a complex question, or one
> reconsidered after the lapse of a considerable amount of time, is a
> task set amenable to machine assistance, and should preferable be
> solved before the "bells and whistles" are added to the program of
> work.
> 
> Discussion?

I have seen two examples that relate to the "minimalist" view as a
strating point for groupware.  David Straus, of Interaction Associates,
and others in his firm are developing a Macintosh system that replaces
the posterboard system for facilitating group discussions.  The mac is
operated by a prson at the back of the room who summarizes the
discussion, complete with graphics if they are used by a discussant. 
The record is displayed on three screens:  current discussion, many
reduced screens showing the flow of discussions, and a screen that can
display past notes that are referenced in the discussion.  At the end of
the day, or at breaks, the notes are printed out and distributed to the
participants.  The computers have a low profile once the participants
get used to seeing the notes appear on the screens during the
discussion, and they are actually less intrusive than having a person
walking around the front of a room writing on the wall and tearing off
sheets of paper while the participants are talking.  

The second example is the U of Arizona decision conference center.  This
is a much more hardware intensive system with PC's networked to support
both individual (and team) efforts and inter-group sharing of
information.  Additional software provides a structure for developing
agendas, setting priorities, identifying interests and decision
criteria, and other steps that are needed whether or not a computer is
used to support decision making.

In some discussions about computer support for international
negotiations, a major focus has been on the management of successive
drafts of an agreement, access to past agreements and discussions that
are relavent to the negotiations but which are not in the direct
knowledge base of the negotiators, and access to related international
law and treaties.  Not rich in sophistication, but these simple tasks
would be a big help (of course, that is a lot of textual data to enter
into a system and to index in an appropriate way).  

In part, since I work with people who feel that they can get by without
computer assistance, I favor the "minimalist" approach as a starting
point.  I think by starting with simple tools that facilitate current
practices there will be rapid acceptance of computer supported groupware
and then newer technologies can be introduced.


-- 

Lance Antrim                            Project on Multilateral Negotiation
..!uunet!embassy!lance                  American Academy of Diplomacy
___________________________________________________________________________

In article <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> prohaska@sun.UUCP (J.R. Prohaska) writes:
>...
>-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
>-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
>-- points of view with machine assistance.
>
>I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi.  
>...
>It's apparently a method for predicting the future by asking a bunch
>of experts.  This method was devised, what, 25 years ago?  It sounds
>like a perfect match for email, newsgroups, groupware, but was devised
>long before any of this was even within shouting distance!
>...

It's my understanding that the Delphi method of reaching consensus (for a
group of humans) was developed by Professor Norman Dalkey, now at UCLA. It
was not specifically aimed at "predicting the future". In fact, the research
was funded, I believe, by DoD, for use in policy making. 

I have been giving thought to a Delphi Server for a E-Mail system and 
would be VERY INTERESTED in discussing same with others.  

For those not familiar with the Delphi method, it is a method of reaching
a quantitative evaluation of subjective opinions be the use or reiterative
rankings by a set of subject experts. (Or so I remember)

For a more complete discussion of the Dephi method, the RAND Corp did a 
write up on it quite a few years ago (I believe the method may have been
developed by the RAND Corp.).

PLEASE, if you have interest in this subject area, POST not E-mail your
comments.  The interactive discussion and value added by the group is
greatly delayed by the one-reply one-reader one-reply one-reader . . .
paradigm. (I knew I could get that word in some where!)

===================================================================
:Bo Newman	 newman@inco.uu.net	      uunet!inco!newman	  : 
:McDonnell Douglas Electronics Systems Company (MDESC-WDC)	  :
:McLean Virginia						  :
:Voice (703) 883-3968                                             :
:Fax USA (703) 883-3889	         				  :
-------------------------------------------------------------------
:  ALL STANDARD, NONSTANDARD, and POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY	  :
===================================================================

In article <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> prohaska@sun.UUCP (J.R. Prohaska) writes:
>-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
>-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
>-- points of view with machine assistance.

Actually, that scene from David's Sling reminded me of descriptions
the CoLAB project at Xerox PARC. I had assumed that what's being
called GroupWare was something similar to that: simultaneous, shared
access to a hypertext structure with a WYSIWES (What You See Is What
Everyone Sees) component.

I've since been told that what's currently being sold as "groupware"
more resembles RCS or SCCS on Unix.

Could someone (several someones, probably) post descriptions of some
of the currently available "groupware"?

	Thanx,
	<mike
--
The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful.		Mike Meyer
My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away.	mwm@berkeley.edu
My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful.		ucbvax!mwm
Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play?		mwm@ucbjade.BITNET

Summary: I believe that we should aim, in designing groupware, to assist
  communication between people, not just for 'better, faster decisions'.

I do not hold with the idea that computers support decision making
by storing all the 'pertinent' topics for consideration by people.
Phrases like "achieving consensus by considering all pertinent
points of view" imply to me a nice rational, objective,
decision making process.  I dont believe that such things can exist.
I also dont believe that they should.

Consider the work of Terry Windograd and Fernandes Flores in their
book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
communicate.

When people examine the world, they do so through a filter of
their own experience.  We find simplifications of the world in
our language, it is easy to believe that these simplifications
are real.  Take for example the notions of truth and falsehood.
It is easy to believe that a statement is either true or false.
They are not, of course; consider self-reference: "This statement is false"
or nonsense: "The grunky bling on the pimple grog".  How can
we measure the validity of statements like this?  When we try to
cast them into inappropriate moulds it is not surprising that we have
problems.  It is easy on reflection to beware of statements like the
self referential one above, but when we stumble on it in other
contexts we find it very difficult to step back and see it for what
it really is.

Simple statements like: "Ice exists naturally" seem to be quite clear
yet they stand in a background which controls their interpretation.
Try that statement on eskimos, who have no single word meaning
'frozen water'.  Try it on people who work with large amounts of
'dry ice' and who may have a different default interpretation
of what 'ice' is.

Many democratic systems use a questionnaire or a set of weights which
a number of people respond to.  These systems ignore the background in
which the questions were written.  We will see claims that getting
people to fill out these questionnaires does tend to achieve consensus.
Consensus is important not because it shows that people agree but
because it makes people believe they agree.  I would argue that the
only reason that a consensus is found is because people responding are
willing to shift their viewpoint to that dictated by the stream of
questions.  In democratic countries, people are often quite happy to
believe that the ability to vote for their leader every few years gives
them freedom and control. That's good; it keeps the people happy.

We should be very careful when building systems which 'support
group decision making' because many of these systems may hide
their biases too well.  Just as it is hard to step back from the
statement: "This statement is false" it is incredibly difficult to
step back from a questionnaire and see what is happening to your
opinions.  How do we argue with software which, after much crunching and
calculating, says: "Well you all agree, based on the results of the
questionnaire that we will do X."  If X is 'sell, sell, sell' and we
are in the share market and everyone uses the same program the effect
could be interesting.  Of course, that would never happen.

Martin Leadbeater            E-mail: Martin.Leadbeater@edgar.sait.edu.au
Academic Computing Service
SA Institute of Technology                        Phone:   +61 8 3433435
The Levels, SA, 5095, Australia                   Fax:     +61 8 3496939

In article <6267@inco.UUCP> newman@inco.UUCP (Bo Newman) writes:

>I have been giving thought to a Delphi Server for a E-Mail system and 
>would be VERY INTERESTED in discussing same with others.  

   Delphi has been utilized with computerized conferencing systems.

>For those not familiar with the Delphi method, it is a method of reaching
>a quantitative evaluation of subjective opinions be the use or reiterative
>rankings by a set of subject experts. (Or so I remember)

   More or less.....

>For a more complete discussion of the Dephi method, the RAND Corp did a 
>write up on it quite a few years ago (I believe the method may have been
>developed by the RAND Corp.).

   I don't know who is responsible for developing the Delphi method, but
a book has been written on the subject:

              H. Linstone, and M. Turoff,
              The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications,
              Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.


   According to the following reference, the first computerized conferencing
system that was built in 1970 implemented a Delphi communication structure.


              Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz
              Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions,
              IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30(1),
              January 1982, pp. 82-91.



George W. Leach					AT&T Paradyne 
(uunet|att)!pdn!reggie				Mail stop LG-133
Phone: 1-813-530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
FAX: 1-813-530-8224				Largo, FL 34649-2826 USA

To see how well the Delphi method works you might try:

   Computers in the 1980s [by] Rein Turn.  New York, Columbia University
   Press, 1974.

Which attempts to predict the technological progress of computers
through the 80's.  Note its publication date.  I have not seen this
book since about 1981, so I would be interested in a short review if
anyone's up to it.

---
	brad sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

In article <6894@pdn.paradyne.com>, reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W.
Leach) says:
>
>   According to the following reference, the first computerized conferencing
>system that was built in 1970 implemented a Delphi communication structure.
>
>
>              Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz
>              Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions,
>              IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30(1),
>              January 1982, pp. 82-91.
>


But like a lot of good work, this was before its time.  Now that real
discussions take place distributed in time and space over these nets,
it is time for a Delphi-like mechanism to evolve, bloating rn even
more 8-)

        lee

The reference George Leach provides (H. Linstone and M. Turoff,  The
Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications) sounds unbeatable as the
place to start, but just in case anyone is interested the reference
from Future Shock is:

	Olaf Helmer,
	Social Technology,
	New York, Basic Books, 1966.

	J.R. Prohaska
	Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California  (415) 336 2502
	Domain:  prohaska@sun.com
	USnail:  Box 9022, Stanford, CA  94305

prohaska%lapis@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska) writes:

>I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi...

>The goal of the method was to get the group of informed people to
>converge in their prognostications.  A Facilitator devised a
>questionnaire and had each person fill it out and return it to him.
>These were copied and distributed to all.  Then a second round took
>place where everyone answered the questionnaire again.  Apparently,
>after a small number of cycles, a fairly useful consensus often
>emerged that subsequently proved to be largely on target.

How does this avoid turning into Groupthink?  Didn't David
Halberstam write a book called something like "The Best and the Brightest"
about how the US Vietnam experience was a result of "groupthink"?

David Dick
Software Innovations, Inc [the Software Moving Company(sm)]
drd@siia.mv.com

In article <10245@zodiac.ADS.COM> levitt@saturn.ADS.COM (Tod Levitt) writes:

>It's my understanding that the Delphi method of reaching consensus (for a
>group of humans) was developed by Professor Norman Dalkey, now at UCLA. It
>was not specifically aimed at "predicting the future". In fact, the research
>was funded, I believe, by DoD, for use in policy making. 

Specifically, Professor Dalkey was codeveloper of Delphi while
a senior mathematician at the Rand Corporation. Still an active
researcher in 1990, he received his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1942!

-- Brad

One way that Delphi and other similar methods try to avoid Group Think
is by using anonymity.  In short, low status right-thinkers can stand up to
higher status wrong-thinkers because it is harder to know exactly who
they are.

Of course, another important point is that our current decision making and
discussion techniques are very susceptible to Group Think.  New methods
might try to reduce the tendency, but could still be useful even if
they were no worse.

                   lee

In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:

>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
>communicate.

Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective, brick?

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117       

In article <90006.101744UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
>One way that Delphi and other similar methods try to avoid Group Think
>is by using anonymity.  In short, low status right-thinkers can stand up to
>higher status wrong-thinkers because it is harder to know exactly who
>they are.

I thought that Delphi was supposed to also identify distinct differing
opinions, as well as a consensus if it exists.  At least, that is what I
have read.  The idea would be that the opinions cluster around a number
of consensuses.  The hope is that these clusters would be much smaller
than the number of participants.  Is this not correct?


  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117       

Are we sure that we want to encourage systems that completely (or as
much as possible) eliminate groupthink?  Some of the characteristics
of groupthink are:
1) a cohesive group
2) a directive leader
3) gatekeepers who block out unwanted information
4) a press for consensus 

Of course, if we use phrases like "premature consensus" or "too
directive" it become obvious.  But we might _want_ a directive leader
to exercise influence and _want_ to exclude people who disagree from
our discussion.  For vindication of these suggestions, see T. Kuhn,
I. Lakatos, P. Laudan, P. Feyerabend or most other "new" philosophers
of science.  These folks argue eloquently that science is (to some
extent at least) an enterprise that needs some social influence in it
(and not mere logical, empirical, argument).  

If we keep people from exercising social influence in CSCW (which we
may not be able to do anyway) we may produce chaos.  Kiesler, Sproull
et al. (at CMU) have done studies showing that Email negotiations take
much longer to conclude than face-to-face negotiations - and often do
not conclude at all but end up with people screaming in all caps at
each other and leaving the lab by separate exits.

The Information Lens allows for some social influence.  You can, for
instance always dump mail from Joe Jerk (be a gatekeeper).  Perhaps
the challenge is to find a way to smoothly wed social influence with
CSCW.
-Chuck Huff
Psychology Department
St. Olaf College
Northfield MN 55057

I doubt that we are good enough social engineers yet to really control
or predict the amount of groupthinkness that this or that system might
embody.  Telephones "encourage" teletag, while email doesn't.  That's
simply one of the differences between those two media.

The degree to which the Information Lens, Coordinator, EIES, UseNet, or
whatever do or do not contribute to groupthink is a question for
empirical study, and will characterize them (in part, of course) as
we discuss them in the future.

                              lee

In article <40069@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
|[...]
|I thought that Delphi was supposed to also identify distinct differing
|opinions, as well as a consensus if it exists.  At least, that is what I
|have read.  The idea would be that the opinions cluster around a number
|of consensuses.  The hope is that these clusters would be much smaller
|than the number of participants.  Is this not correct?

	Most places I know about, the number of distinct
	differing opinions is significantly larger than
	the number of participants...

-- 
  \\\\	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ont.
w \66/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `/v/-e	 BitNet:   BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
_<  \_	 "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo

In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
|In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:
|
|>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
|>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
|>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
|>communicate.
|
|Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
|the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
|Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
|their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
|the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective, brick?

	Ho, ho, this is droll.

	If someone says they are an objectivist, throw a brick at
	their head. If they duck, ignore them.

-- 
  \\\\	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ont.
w \66/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `/v/-e	 BitNet:   BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
_<  \_	 "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo

In article <90010.110838UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:

>I doubt that we are good enough social engineers yet to really control
>or predict the amount of groupthinkness that this or that system might
>embody.  Telephones "encourage" teletag, while email doesn't.  That's
>simply one of the differences between those two media.

    Dr. Hiltz (EIES) is a sociologist.

>The degree to which the Information Lens, Coordinator, EIES, UseNet, or
>whatever do or do not contribute to groupthink is a question for
>empirical study, and will characterize them (in part, of course) as
>we discuss them in the future.


%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%A Murray Turoff
%T The Evolution of User Behavior in a Computerized Conferencing System
%J Communications of the ACM
%V 24
%N 11
%D November 1981
%P 739-751

%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%T Impact of a Computerized Conferencing System upon use of other
%T Communication Modes
%J Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer Communication
%C London, England
%D 7-10 September 1982
%P 577-582

%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%A Murray Turoff
%A K. Johnson
%A C. Aronovitch
%T Equality, Dominance and Group Decision Making:
%T Results of a Controlled Experiment on Face to Face Vs. Computer
%T Mediated Discussions
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Communication
%C Atlanta, USA
%D 27-30 October 1980
%P 343-348

%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%A Murray Turoff
%T Applications and Impacts of Computerized Conferencing in the 
%T Multi-National Organization
%J Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer Communication
%C Kyoto, Japan
%D 26-29 September 1978
%P 711-716


%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%T Impact of a Computerized Conferencing System upon Scientific 
%T Research Specialties
%J Journal of Research Communication Studies
%V 1
%D 1978
%P 111-124


%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%T Experiments and Experiences with Computerized Conferencing
%B Emerging Office Systems
%B based on Proceedings of the Stanford University International
%B Symposium on Office Automation
%E Robert M. Landau
%E James H. Bair
%E Jean H. Siegman
%I Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey 07648
%D 1980
%P 187-204

%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%T The Human Element in Computerized Conferencing Systems
%J Computer Networks
%V 2
%D 1978
%P 421-428

%A Starr Roxanne Hiltz
%T Computer Conferencing: Assessing the Social Impact of a New
%T Communications Medium
%J Technological Forecasting and Social Change
%V 10
%D 1977
%P 225-238

George W. Leach					AT&T Paradyne 
(uunet|att)!pdn!reggie				Mail stop LG-133
Phone: 1-813-530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
FAX: 1-813-530-8224				Largo, FL 34649-2826 USA

In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes:
>
>>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'.  In this work, Winograd
>>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured.
>>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to
>>communicate.
> 
>Did they *really* say this?  If so, it would be an example of relativism of
>the worst sort.  I thought better of T. Winograd.  It reminds me of Edward
>Abbey's "Test".  If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at
>their head.  It they duck, they are a liar.  Is the brick "created through
>the language which we use to communicate"?  Or is it a real, objective, brick?

Sigh.  It drives me mildly crazy when amateur philosophers sling
around terms like "relativism," as if they were some sort of
pejorative, in lieu of an argument against the position cited.

Hugh, there's more to the world then bricks.  Ideas, social relations,
practices, categories, abstractions like `justice', are all part of
the world that human beings talk about and interact with every day.
As Wittgenstein said, the world is all that is the case.  The world is
not just an assemblage of mute globs of matter--it's matter (and more
than matter) as understood, as classified, as experienced; Husserl's
"life-world," if you will.  Wiser men than you or I have called
attention to how critical the role of language is in the construction
of that life-world.  Bricks, beside the fact that they are a product
of culture, which is mediated by language, are comprise a category
that is delineated through language.

The question of solipsism is simply an irrelevancy in this debate, as
is what you appear to be arguing against, which is idealism.  If by
"relativism" you mean linguistic relativity as propounded by von
Humboldt, Sapir and Whorf, among others, well, there are many
varieties of it, not all of which are at all incompatible with your
seemingly realist viewpoint.  The position that the world is
constructed through language has nothing to say about whether bricks
are real or not--but you have to understand the position before you can
assess that.  Read Winograd before you dump on him--he may live up to
your expectations after all.

(In fairness, I must say that the original poster doesn't give the
best summary of the phenomenological position that Winograd and Flores
are espousing.  To say "there is no objective world" is overly strong
and overly simple, I think.)

(straying from groupware--followups elsewhere?)

--

Rod Johnson             Internet: rcj@um.cc.umich.edu
U Michigan Linguistics       (or: johnsonr@thor.acc.stolaf.edu)   
(in exile in Minnesota)    Phone: (507) 645 9804

*** no connection with St. Olaf except as a grateful guest ***

In article <10518@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> rcj@um.cc.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:

>Sigh.  It drives me mildly crazy when amateur philosophers sling
>around terms like "relativism," as if they were some sort of
>pejorative, in lieu of an argument against the position cited.

And it drives me crazy when amateur philosophers claim that there is no
objective reality.

>(straying from groupware--followups elsewhere?)

Agreed.  I apologize for not ignoring the previous posting.  I will say no
more on this subject.

**************************************************************************

Has anyone written a good X Window System implementation of something like
Delphi?  It would seem to be ideal.

  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP ames!lamaster
  NASA Ames Research Center  ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035     
  Phone:  (415)694-6117       

In article <90010.110838UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:

>>   The degree to which the Information Lens, Coordinator, EIES, UseNet, or

I am working on a groupware system that could be entitled "Coordinator".
If things go well it should be on the net in 4 months or so.  In 2 months
I may advertize for beta testers.  I would be interested in information
about this "Coordinator"; a description of what it is and/or some references
would be nice.

Thanks,
Tom

bannon@csc.ti.com