en asserted previously:

&gt; My point was that there isnt going to be (for the 
&gt; reasons which Chris outlined so cogently in his original message) one 
&gt; Good Enough Ontology, if 'good enough' means that it will accomodate 
&gt; all ontological perspectives reasonably well. You seem to think that 
&gt; this is like choosing a standard notation, but it's more like taking 
&gt; a definite position on every deep question in philosophical analysis 
&gt; for the last two thousand years, and declaring tha