[anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:24:19 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> >But: The very definition of abuse - has it changed? If yes,
> >what exactly constitutes abuse in 2016? - We may actually have to
> >redefine the definition of abuse?
> 
> Oh now THIS ought to be fun to watch.  Let me just get my popcorn...
> 
popcorn and a notepad...- why don't you kick us off with the start of a
one liner definition and then we build on that?

We should all be able to agree on the basics - where there is dissent -
leave that out until we establish if the dissent is actually worthy or
not?

Actually having an understanding of what constitutes abuse is crucial
to the functioning of this list

Seriously, I am not sure myself as I now understand that I may be wrong
and this may seem basic to some people, but when you actually think
about defining it, it has changed in the past ten (fifteen?) years
and there is a need for us all to understand what others think 

We all simply assume that we know the answer, and although we may, I am
not convinced that we are all right. For one, I may be wrong and I need
to change/upgrade my own view or point of view somewhat.

Or maybe not. It will be good to know either way.

btw - I am very willing to help you with the proposal, if you like?

Andre