From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 12:18:30 CDT
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> In <4093F3D3.2090005@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>>>In <200404291400.i3TDxx5U012243@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>>>>>There is no "implied SHOULD NOT" in RFC2119. Either it's there or it
>>>>>isn't.
>>>
>>>>It is a matter of simple logic. "SHOULD DO X" implies "SHOULD NOT DO NOT
>>>>X".
>>
>>>Your "logic" is flawed. You seem to have persistent trouble with the
>>>"fallacy of the excluded middle".
>>
>> In the present matter, there is no middle to exclude.
>
> Charles, get a clue. "You SHOULD comb your hair" absolutely, positively
> does *NOT* imply "you SHOULD NOT brush your teeth".
"brush your teeth" is not the same as "not comb your hair".
"You SHOULD comb your hair" implies "You SHOULD NOT leave your hair
uncombed".
Seth