Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Anarchy (Re: Fool) Message-ID: Date: 19 Nov 90 15:06:53 GMT References: <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org> <1990Nov18.160226.15864@com50.c2s.mn.org> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 12 In article <1990Nov18.160226.15864@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: > But if the dictionary is not the source of authority in this case, what is? > If there is no source of authority, then we have anarchy. And if we have > anarchy, then my definitions and arguments about whether we have anarchy > are as valid as any other. True. But as someone in this discussion mentioned one of the things about anarchy is having to put up with things that really piss you off. If language is an anarchy, and I have to put up with people calling phreaks "hackers", then you'll have to live with people calling usenet an "anarchy". Remember, you're the one objecting. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com