The Wednesday 2004-10-27 at 07:03 -0700, Bahram Alinezhad wrote:
From my "Oxford Pocket Dictionary": request = act of politely asking for something... require = 1- need... 2- (fml) (usu passive) order; demand...
Excuse me for the wrong use of the word! As you can see from dictionary, it is implicitly deduced that "require" should have a gentle meaning; I didn't know it is so interpreted in your language, sorry.
I understand. There are also some internet dictionaries, some of them using the "Dictionary Server Protocol (DICT)". In SuSE Linux, you have the server daemon, dictd, and some client programs - but unfortunately, the databases themselves are not included, but they can be downloaded, they are not too big, and then, when installed, you save connection time: dict-web1913-1.4.tar.gz is 293649 bytes dict-jargon-4.2.0.tar.gz is 646270 bytes For example, the 1913 Webster says - yes, almost a century old, but it is free: | 1. To demand; to insist upon having; to claim as by right and | authority; to exact; as, to require the surrender of | property.
The fact which "Randall R Schulz" pointed out, is obvious: Use of many slangs and incomplete sentences by native English speakers is very annoying, as I cannot find them in my dictionary (Oxford Pocket); Do they understand themselves?! Sometimes, they don't respect whom aren't native English speakers, but, I do respect them, because I have to use this international language, and moreover, my purpose is solving technical problems, not verbal.
Sorry about that. In time, you learn more and more of the language. I did. Then, you can enjoy reading technical manuals faster ;-)
And about the posting style, I believe these cumulative responses are much more annoying: I have to count the number of ">" marks at each line to find out who is its writer! If you confirm, the quality of this mailing list will never improve, unless it be replaced by a "forum".
No, that's the method we use, and has be used for years. Notice that we do not leave all the original text, but only that which is needed to remember what the OP (original poster) said. If we need to read the OP full email, or the one before, or before, no problem: just a click o a few keystrokes. With webmail it is more difficult, of course. Like this email. There are, of course, other methods. Some prefer "top posting", which consists on leaving the original text, complete, below. The problem is that it wastes space (and time), specially when a second poster answer again on top, and the email gets very very long. This method probably comes from business world, where the bandwidth expense doesn't matter. For you and me, it does: we both pay for our internet time. It is better to keep email as short as possible. Your method seems to be a mixture of both, thus the difficulty. Arguing about what method is better is probably one of the preferred OT (Off Topic) subjects in this and other lists, causing endless discussions (flame wars) ;-)
Note that my Qs haven't been replied yet, and if I ask them again in separate mails, They will complain...!
No, at least I will not, and I know quite a few that won't, either :-) Some of them have been answered, as best as we could. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or they don't work very well, or you don't like them. I don't know, it's difficult for me to follow the broken thread. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson