Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-21 21:15:25 +0100 Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
No, that's not a logical conclusion. It's [...] slippery slope
It's no less a fallacy than claiming "software" is controversial and
worthy of special definition.
"Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
"hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition
of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define
common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being
used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word "social" and
claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood.
There's no evidence that all other words in the document lead to such
controversy, and no reason to suppose that we'll have to define them
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could equally well
state that there is no evidence that no other words in the document
lead to such controversy with a subset of the population. While
clearly true, that fact doesn't help anything either.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ email@example.com
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/