Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 04/29/2014 00:32 (04/29/2014 10:32) |
Message-ID | <kmltl9lkp7l6sa1sa1unlrhq9evekse378@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (6h & 46m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanPerson A will have to use a password to log in, just like everyone else.
In article <8jgtl99u98q9b7cl3vbumrjjj60au2c3hv@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:SandmanEric 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.
In your example, there were no requirements posed for person A, he's the one who added it, not the one subject to it.
--SandmanI 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.Eric Stevens
Like when you respond to Tony thinking that you're responding to me and complain about what he says. :)
Vanity on your part.
I.e. facts that you can't deal with.