What exactly works for you, AnnaS?
And, Moss, I disagree that silence is necessarily consent. By whose absolute measure is silence consent? And, even so, is this law infallible?
Silence is silence, and, so being silent, may be construed to be either critical silence or consensual silence. But we need the facts of the situation at hand to begin to construe whether the silence had been either critical or consensual--or could have been undecided silence that lay somewhere in between. There are times in which people could experience great disapproval of words spoken, yet would remain silent, not to consent to what had been spoken, but because of the inappropriateness of expression at the moment. Consider meetings at work--team meetings, board meetings, conferences--in which co-workers or colleagues publicly express views that one considers to be unprofessional. One may remain silent in the public format of the meeting, but in private would address those concerns later and in a less humiliating venue out of fairness and sensitivity. There must be countless examples in which participants in discussions remain silent, not out of consent, but out of sensitivity to the situation--and with full intention to act at a later time upon the disagreement in a different venue.
We have the silence of Sir Thomas Moore and Jesus writing in the sand among other other instances of silence on points. And we have the law itself trying to determine what silence could have meant.
But finally we cannot interpret silence unless we question it. And since this board isn't a court of law, writing one's meaning out is a possible course to explain silence, but it is not the only course.
I would argue that interpreting silence strictly as consent is making a limited and perhaps erroneous assumption about silence.
