>To say that no means no is to say, precisely, that no *never* means no
>(which >is why you have to negate the first no with a second). The second
>no "returns >to itself" in a destructive fashion: in other words: WE
>BELIEVE THAT NO MEANS >NO - BUT WE DON'T TRUST ANYONE WHO SAYS NO!
Er, hope you're not under the impression you've explained this, Ken! I thought 'no no means no' means 'no never means no', whilst 'no means no' means 'all nos mean no'. How daft am I?
>consensus is based on law about what can be agreed to. surely.
So the law is always logically required before there can be consensus. Can there be a law that sez all laws have to be the product of consensus? I mean, what do you mean by 'law'? Background consensus (as lifeworld?), or institutional setting (as system?)?
>When I was six years old they tried to test my IQ. They gave me three apples
>and a pear and asked me, "Which one is different and does not belong?" They
>taught me different is wrong. - ani difranco
No they didn't. - rob schaap