On 2014-08-12 02:07, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> It is rude to deliberately refuse to give attributes
> >
> > While I find this true for first-level attribution, I feel far
> > less obligation to attribute additional levels (and the verbosity
> > they entail).
>
> I cannot disagree with that.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I cannot disagree with that. I consider that the first-level attribution
> MUST be given, second-level SHOULD be given, and third- and subsequent
> levels MAY be given, where MUST/SHOULD/MAY have their conventional
> meanings from RFC 2119
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:27:25 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 10:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> It is rude to deliberately refuse to give attributes
>
> While I find this true for first-level attribution, I feel far less
> obligation to attribute additional levels (and the verbosity they
>
On 2014-08-12 10:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It is rude to deliberately refuse to give attributes
While I find this true for first-level attribution, I feel far less
obligation to attribute additional levels (and the verbosity they
entail). If the reader is really that interested in who said what
