On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:28:18 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> I think you need a better grammar book. I shall ... They will. I
>> will ... They shall.
> I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not
> going to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not",
> not the sense that you do not want it to have the option (active
> from your part), which would be "it shall not".
Well, that is partially true, but is not the entire reason for
the construct; given the time table of the voting period, the current
state of the code, my time constrainst, the technical reasons why
encrypting to the (insecure) vote key is not a great idea,
decryption shall not happen, at least for this vote.
> If the latter was the intent, than "it shall not" is indeed true,
> but from the other messages in the thread, I got the impression that
> you tried to convey the first meaning, in which case "shall" would
> be inappropriate.
I wish people would give me a modicum of credit for being
conversant with the language. However, I am indeed opposed to giving
Devotee the ability to decrypt messages in the near term. However,
for the purpose of this vote, you can bank on the the expectation
that devotee shall not, indeed, decrypt your ballot.
manoj
--
e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic
data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up
crap. Karl Lehenbauer
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
