On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 19:01:49 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 11:55 AM, moxalt wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:34:38 +0000, Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> That's a bit arrogant - saying that other people shouldn't watch the news > >> on their computers because you would choose not to do so. > >> > >> Lisi > > > > I don't think advocating that others should follow certain ethical > > principles is at all arrogant. > > It's arrogant as soon as you use the word "should". "Shoulding" is one > of the 100+ "Elements of Criminal Thinking". Try "IMHO It would be > better if..." to offer your personal POV, which others are free to > accept or ignore. Your views will gain more attraction in that manner. Very well. I shall reformulate my earlier posts. Here is the first instance of my vicious and triggering usage of the word 'should': For those websites which still require Flash, IMHO it would be better if you found some way of downloading the video (preferably in an open format). Here is the second: IMHO it would be better if the OP did neither. Happy now? Feeling less threatened? .......................................... You know what, I started out this post wanting to get back at you for what I felt was an unfair backlash to my usage of what I thought to be an innocent and widely-used word: 'should'. Now that I look at the edited offending sections, they actually look far better and far more reasonable when I put it the way you suggested. Thank you. I shall try and avoid using the word 'should' when unnecessary in the future (except when I'm preaching to the choir over in the Trisquel forum that is ;). I am sorry.