> Definitions are overrated, people seldom have them or need one.
People think they don't need them, cos people are dumb. For instance, companies advertising products love to use the new buzzword "natural". Try defining that. Of course it can be done, I could say that the defn. is "those systems unaffected by human intervention". Does that definition fit the use of "natural" in describing a new hair product? Nope. In fact the true primitive abstract "definition" used by joe public is probably more like "trees and stuff, not toxic waste.", which is of course, utter shit. The advertising agencies love it though, cos the knackered concept implies superiority, good health and the like, with no basis in logic and no translation to the real world. This also means that they can apply it to virtally ANY product, as long as it is not named "toxic waste". They are within the law as "natural" doesn't mean shit, and the law knows it.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.