ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:

================= Definition of abuse =================

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"

----------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the definition -----------------------------------------------

(1) Sanctioned An action, event or situation that specifically or expressly gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action

So, if, for example, I, Ron Guilmette, give my friend Joe Hacker, my permission to DDoS your corporate web site, that's OK then, yes? Because he has my permission. Yes? Before responding, in heat or otherwise, please read and consider: To any who may think that I'm just quibbling and/or being pedantic about the definition of the terms of reference here, I'd like to just mention a short and rather famous phrase from another document where the terms of reference were also not adequately or precisely defined, at the outset, and where that lack of specificity, in the end, gave rise to what may perhaps have been the greatest single tragedy to have ever befallen my own great nation: "... that all men are created equal..." At the time that was written and signed, there was an *implicit* understanding among some of those who signed it that the term "all men" in this context was quite obviously intended to mean "all white men". Some of the signers believed that's what it meant. Some others did not. That simple lack of specificity festered, like an open gangrenous wound, in the American body politic until some four score and some odd years later when the differing interpretations finally broke out into armed conflict... The American Civil War, in which brother killed brother, and over 600,000 Americans lost their lives. And of course, I haven't even mentioned the civil strife and hardships of the early 20th Century, as the original term of reference, "all men", slowly started to become redefined, yet again, to mean "all human persons, both male and female"... a redefinition that is still a work-in-progress as of this writing, a full century after it began. So before anybody *else* tells me... like Andre... that I'm just nitpicking or being pedantic, I refer you again to the phrase "... that all men are created equal..." and ask you to consider that the final and total costs of your ambiguities may, in the end, perhaps be borne not just by you, but perhaps also by your children as well. Words matter. Regards, rfg P.S. I have no real feeling, one way or the other, about Andre's general _formulation_ of the definition of abuse. It may perhaps be great. It may perhaps be the absolutely best and most concise way of stating our common beliefs on this subject. It's not the general formulation I have issues with. It's only the lack of clarity with respect to the terms of reference. Once those are adequately and crisply clarified, I might actually like what Andre proposes.