On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.
Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.
The simple rule is that you
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think you need a better grammar book.
I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And getting weird of
weird rules is certainly a nice improvement --- English has
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:28:18 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava:
I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I
will ... They shall.
I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not
going to have the option (passive),
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:01:24 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:20, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think you need a better grammar book.
I think you need a grammar book published after 1908[1] The English
spoken in 1908 is not the English spoken today. And
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
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Manoj Srivastava:
I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.
I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going
to have the option (passive), which would be it will not, not the
sense that you do not want it to have the
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
--
Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to
read the sentence twice
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.
I find that has little to
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message.
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they
think it is good style and reproduce it.
So you continue to say. In my
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
English and I was at a good
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
Sir,
I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-/
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
the gut of the native
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting
mechanism cannot
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
with a simpler
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system
might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for
Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which
means the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
of anthropomorphism.
The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.
You'd claim the
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
construct, since it is
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
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
anthropomorphism.
The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.
You'd claim the
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to read
the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
So you say. I beg to
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
--
Oliver Elphick
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick
olly@lfix.co.uk said:
Nevertheless, that use of shall is so strange that I had to
read the sentence twice to
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.
I find that has little to
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message.
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they
think it is good style and reproduce it.
So you continue to say. In my
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
English and I was at a good
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-/
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
the gut of the native
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as The voting
mechanism cannot
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
construct, since it is
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
of anthropomorphism.
The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.
You'd claim the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Comments and feedback appreciated.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.
Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions.
##
Votes must be
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is the new version.
This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed this
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
Discussion choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota and
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
the Further Discussion
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
message.
I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange to
me. Maybe a will would be more appropriate?
No. I was taught English which may
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
your message.
I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange
to me. Maybe a
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:24 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have wishes, but
not intents? You should probably learn about the concept of
anthropomorphism.
The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s.
You'd claim the
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Comments and feedback appreciated.
In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion.
Thanks for circulating this draft. I have some editorial suggestions.
##
Votes must be
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:51:09 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 1: Proposal A [ ] Choice 2: Proposal B [ ] Choice 3:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Here is the new version.
This vote is being conducted in accordance with the Debian
Constitution, Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on a
General Resolution to amend the constitution to disambiguate section
4.1.5.
Don't know how I missed this
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
Discussion choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota and
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
the Further Discussion
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT), Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.
Out of curiousity, do you deal with this situation, and if so how?
The ballot is rejected as corrupt.
signed) with your
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk said:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 20:15, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt
your message.
I'm no native speaker of english, but that shall seems strange
to me. Maybe a will
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:36:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Here is a draft ballot for the GR under discussion. There are
3 variants being proposed, and hence the ballot begins to look like
the draft below. This is a draft, the first call for votes goes
56 matches
Mail list logo
