[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <peter@softwolves.pp.se> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava:
>> If people cannot understand: "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the
>> voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message."  they
>> should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.

> To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in a
> jurisdiction where encryption is not allowed, so it may not read
> encrypted ballots.

	As long as you do not send encrypted ballots, your speculation
 about the reasons does not matter.

> I just re-read the book on English grammar I used in school, and it
> says that your use of "shall" is valid in British English, but only
> for the first person, not for the third person as it is used
> above. "I shall not be able to...", but "It will not be able to...".

	I think you need a better grammar book.
 I shall ...  They will.
 I will  ...  They shall.

Machines have less problems.  I'd like to be a machine. Andy Warhol
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: