Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/28/2014 23:13 (04/28/2014 23:13) |
| Message-ID | <slrnllth94.9ia.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (1h & 19m) > Sandman |
In article <8jgtl99u98q9b7cl3vbumrjjj60au2c3hv@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
In your example, there were no requirements posed for person A, he's the one who added it, not the one subject to it.Eric StevensSandmanSandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
From then on persons B, C, D etc have to that specific thing.
Use it in an example.
I want security on my computer.
I.e. you *desire* security, security isn't required of you. It's something you want. Fine, good use of the word "want" there!Eric StevensSandman
I have set it up so it is requirement that all users have to log in with a password.
I.e. "all users" are required to submit a password, and it's not something they "want".Now, remember the quote from Andreas:"A requirement is what you want to do"Eric Stevens
You go away and argue with Tony about his definition. You asked me to give an example ilustrating the situation I put forward in Message-ID: <p3jol956vjcke7rn76b8chgmgoqkkahhvo@4ax.com>and that is what I have done.
Yes, and a very good example that shows that Tony used the word incorrectly, which was my point. A requirement is not what you want to do, which your example clearly shows.
It is if I am person A.
I.e. facts that you can't deal with.SandmanEric Stevens
I love it when you post something and after the fact you realize that you agreed with me 100% and it really messes with your mind.
Like when you respond to Tony thinking that you're responding to me and complain about what he says. :)
Vanity on your part.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
