Alan Hannan (alan@mindvision.com) writes:
> I'm not Randy, but I did state the previous definition.
Yeah, I know, I was just particularly surprised by Randy's dismissive
attitude.
> B is utilizing A's transit resource in the manner
> A intended.
Purse snatchers utilize little old ladies' purses in the manner little
old ladies intend?
That's ascribing intention to A unreasonably. You appear to be saying
that if B is ill-intentioned enough to steal from A, that the fact of
A's existence legitimizes B's theft. Obviously, by this reasoning, A
would not exist if A didn't _intend_ to get ripped off by B. I find
this argument unconvincing.
> C is compensated by A to provide flow from B<->C<->A.
Again, I'd disagree. If A is buying transit from C, I'd suggest that
A's primary intention would be to utilize that transit to reach point
to which A is not already connected.
+---+ +---+
> A +---------+ B |
+---+ +---+
\ XP1 /
\ /