From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 13:17:47 CDT
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> 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".
That's nice, but irrelevant to what Charles claimed.
Guide for those who need one:
X = "comb your hair"
NOT X = "brush your teeth"
"SHOULD DO X" = "You SHOULD comb your hair"
"SHOULD NOT DO NOT X" = "you SHOULD NOT brush your teeth"
Any clearer?