[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

ox <andre at 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