Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:
Okay, just to be clear and precise: You agree that the definition of abuse is:
"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"
You're not hearing me. The answer is "No, I neither agree nor disagree with your formulation for the simple reason that it is amost entirely ambiguous, and thus meaningless, because you haven't defined _any_ of the terms used. Thus, your formulation could mean almost anything that either the writer or the reader wishes it to mean, and thus, it has no real meaning at all." Examples: If by "sanctioned" you mean "agreed to, explicity, and in writing, by Ronald F. Guilmette, regardless of the sentiments or opinions of others" then yea! That will work great for me! I'll accept that! I have a funny feeling however that when and if we were to make this simple and innocuous "clarification" to the definition of "abuse" you are proposing, some other people might possibly object however. Similarly, if by "another resource" you mean "only the Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Station in Irkutsk and no other resources" then no, that isn't quite broad enough for me, nor is it likely to be for anybody else. You're trying to get everyone to agree to a set of words strung together to form a sentence, even though nobody, including you, even has a clear notion of what any of the individual words mean, or are intended to mean. It is a silly and pointless exercise, absent definitions of the terms on reference. Anybody can vote in favor of the proposition that "All God's children should be happy." The devil is in the details. Ask any lawyer. Regards, rfg
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 02:53:19 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:
Okay, just to be clear and precise: You agree that the definition of abuse is: "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"
You're not hearing me. The answer is "No, I neither agree nor disagree with your formulation <snip>
I am hearing you loud and clear. You have nothing to say. But yet, you do have a lot to say, about nothing except that anything can mean anything or maybe it can mean something when it could mean something else and the definition of abuse could also mean that there is a cat in a tree and a donkey in the paddock.
You're trying to get everyone to agree to a set of words strung together to form a sentence, even though nobody, including you, even
You continue to be quite rude, previously you directly questioned my technical abilities, now you are questioning my comprehension of words in the English language? English is my THIRD language, so I am clearly at a major disadvantage to yourself. Then, my fathers family is originally Dutch, so maybe English is even my fourth language (or sixth, coming to think of it as my mother was Wannenburg, rest her soul, was a German. - So, yes, I guess you are right! Between Afrikaans, Zulu, Dutch, French and German and then English, I guess I am not English that much... And yes, I am a mix of Dutch and German, who speaks Afrikaans and Zulu (and speak, write and read all the other languages as well, quite proficiently, I used to think - now not so sure anymore...) I am sure the English language speakers and writers will help me out if or when something is lost in translation or seems off or even weird? Furthermore, I am sure there are many people on this list that do not speak English at home, or not even as a second language. All that said, it is still perfectly clear whom does not understand what. Moving forward: - I will start a new thread, which defines the terms in the definition. Andre
participants (2)
-
ox -
Ronald F. Guilmette