Definition of "telecommuncations"

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

At 12:57 PM 12/06/97 +1000, fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) wrote:
>Let's get down to basics here:
>
>"Communicating over distance"

Stewart, you surprise me.

If I ask a friend to pass on a message to my sister the next time she sees
her in Manchester, is that not communicating over distance? Is that
telecommunications, in the sense meant?

There will always be problems with definitions as long as they involve
words. Everything is relative and circular. That doesn't mean we cannot
agree on something, as long as it is not cast in stone and made absolute. A
shared understanding is more important than the words used.

Can the law cope with this?

Since writing the above I have read the various follow ups to this thread.

Stewart said that:

> My point was really that it is a complete waste of time to try
> to prescribe the limits of language.

I must have missed this point in the first message but I agree with it. (see
above)

The more imortant question is:

How can the law and society work without agreed definitions?

It's one thing for me and others to throw stones at definitions, but we do
need them. I don't know what the answer is, I think I know what the question
is. I suppose that is a start.

regards
brd
 
Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra, Australia
brd@netinfo.com.au