Re: The word 'should'.
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:47:08 +0100, Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> wrote:
> Il 21/11/2015 23:45, Lisi Reisz ha scritto:
> > On Saturday 21 November 2015 17:36:46 Mauro Condarelli wrote:
> >> Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so my command of the
> >> language is lacking (so say the least), please bear with me.
> > Which might limit your ability to comment on the finer nuances of the
> > meaning of the language.
> >
> > Please don't take that as a criticism - my knowledge of Italian is only just
> > the right side of non-existent - but you aren't in a good position to
> > comment.
> That, may be the case, but I feel like I can distinguish between who is
> really trying to force someone else to behave in a well defined way and who
> isn't. Here we are not discussing "nuances", but "annoyance". BTW this is,
> again, a lawyer trick: divert the attention from the main subject to the
> irrelevant to score a point.
>
> Anyway (back on subject):
> Since everybody here is, more or less, in the computer trade: why don't we
> stick to RFC2119? (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) It seems pretty
> explicit on what the meaning of "should" should be. (double "should" very
> intentional)
lol
Reply to: