> The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word.
Right, so use the dictionary we already have! Why do we need the RFC?
> "there's no possible way to disambiguate English"
This quote isn't from me. I didn't say that - I don't know where you've got it from.
> your repeated sarcasm and snark
Sarcasm and snark? I don't use those rhetorical devices if I can avoid it. I don't think I've used them in this thread at all! I don't know where you've got the idea that I'm not arguing seriously from. I'm sorry I gave that impression.
My legitimate argument is that nobody is honestly confused by words like must - nobody. The RFC is over-the-top formalism where it's not needed.
Right, so use the dictionary we already have! Why do we need the RFC?
> "there's no possible way to disambiguate English"
This quote isn't from me. I didn't say that - I don't know where you've got it from.
> your repeated sarcasm and snark
Sarcasm and snark? I don't use those rhetorical devices if I can avoid it. I don't think I've used them in this thread at all! I don't know where you've got the idea that I'm not arguing seriously from. I'm sorry I gave that impression.
My legitimate argument is that nobody is honestly confused by words like must - nobody. The RFC is over-the-top formalism where it's not needed.