RE: Definitions

Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 10:51:29 EST

  • Next message: Jim Allan: "Re: Ewellic"

    > /Adults/ can say no (as indeed can non-adults), but /consenting/ adults
    > are, by definition, adults who say yes. If they say no, they are not
    > consenting. Consenting, by definition, means saying yes.

    Consenting means saying yes when you can say no. Saying yes when a no won't be
    listened to is just non-resistance.

    > James's statement ("any application which restricts PUA use is
    > effectively precluding consenting adults from reaching and implementing
    > their private agreements") is correct. If you choose to redefine the
    > word "consenting" to mean "one who consents to using an application
    > which restricts the PUA" then I would argue that's just a silly
    > redefinition.

    No, it's deciding what to do with the PUA. By this logic any application which
    does apply semantics to characters in the PUA is equally non-conformant because
    it is restricting the use of the PUA to the defined behaviou - and the only
    conformant applications are those which pass PUA characters through untouchted,
    though they would generally do so with a source and/or sink that assigns
    meaning and hence the system as a whole is still non-conformant.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 11:44:18 EST