Ross Hunter wrote:How ironic, a thread about "should", telling you what words you shouldn't use.
How ironic, a thread about "should", telling you what words you shouldn't use.
When I was a young man, I remember a woman telling me "you should never say 'should'". For an hour or two we explored this idea.
Being easily offended is not a good thing.
Col. Knox, U.S.Army, (Ret.):
The word 'should' shall never be used in a direct order, as it is not a mandate, but rather a suggestion. If your troops fail to follow your suggestion, they cannot be disciplined for not obeying an order - they never received an order.
Cassie Langstraat wrote:
Ross Hunter wrote: Being easily offended is not a good thing.
I think it is important to keep in mind that everyone has a different level of sensitivity and that is okay. Some people are offended by things because it hurts them or it would hurt someone else and because of their high level of sensitivity and empathy, it hurts them. Just because you can't "understand such sensitivity" doesn't mean that it isn't a real thing for people and that they need to change so that you can understand them.
Kyrt Ryder wrote:Just to confirm, is 'should' considered acceptable in the context of expected results? IE: if you do X, then Y should happen?
lorance romero wrote:"should" is very appropriate in some circumstances ie: you SHOULD eat your peas
paul wheaton wrote:If nothing else, please compare "I found a great article. You should read it." and "I found a great article." .... or "I found a great article. I think you would enjoy it."
Poor Paul has had to endure HOURS of "shoulds" from people who have only been here days or weeks. I'm not exaggerating. It's been literally hours. (Let alone all the 300-400 past visitors and residents over the last few years who have each had their own flavor of "shoulds." And this is only in meat space, not on the forums!!)
It's exhausting, and I'm only experiencing it peripherally.
For the record, each "should" is different, most are nothing new, and the "ideas"/"shoulds" do not solve the issues we are having.
Oh, and Judith, folks mowing your lawn for you, without your permission?! Oy vey. That would send me right up into crazy mode! Hopefully everyone will figure out how abundant your system is, and even if they don't like it so much, they'll leave you to it.
K Putnam wrote:I *have* fired volunteers and even major donors who perpetually created drama to no good end. I love feedback and was always happy to take constructive feedback and make a change if it was relevant. There were times the feedback was relevant and it was a teachable moment. Super. But I did draw the line at volunteers and donors beating up my staff and telling them what they should do to make the volunteer happy. At the end of the day, the board and the executive were responsible for fulfilling the mission of the program, not for making every volunteer and donor happy. This sounds terribly harsh but for every 97 wonderful happy volunteers there were 3 that were volunteering because...honestly...they were miserable in their lives and were looking for someone else to make them feel better and were upset when that didn't happen. You *should* get rid of them. (KIDDING. SUPER KIDDING. RUNNING AWAYLOLOLOLOLOLZ).