[dwashbur]

I’s sure you know it is Eaine Pagels, not Pagals. She claims to be an expert in Gonosticism which is not the same as in Christianity…

And I'm sure you know it's Gnosticism, not Gonosticism :D
-Sir Nitpick

[joypulv]

I meant in your review we got Bin Ladin, not in the game. So you never went to Ames for games, OK, shows how that game 'telephone' got started. Or maybe you're too young for telephone. Anyway, let's see all of you try to think much less hear, spell, and construct sentences with a TOOTHACHE. Why did we have to have our chompers so close to our brains??

[joypulv]

I think Sir Nitpick is excellent at nitpicking and history.
I think gromitt is excellent at ESL and history.
For all I know, both of you read Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
What a wonderful place this is. A good argument in good humor; who could ask for more. Plus I realize every day how much I don't know.

[Wondergirl]

Let's get into some semantics re. "should". We call it in Spanish "a conditional tense" and it does not necessarily imply an advice followed by a threat or warning. "You should go to the Los Angeles Opera if you want to see Placido Domingo serving as the General Director" or "you should listen the 5 o'clock boadcast in Radio so and so. They have a wonderful program going on"

No threats or warnings there don't you agree?

"You should..." but if you don't? If you don't, how will you feel, and how will the speaker feel? There is implied guilt for not following through, implied disappointment. That was how Dr. Ellis explained "should."

[dwashbur]

I meant in your review we got Bin Ladin, not in the game. So you never went to Ames for games, OK, shows how that game 'telephone' got started. Or maybe you're too young for telephone. Anyway, let's see all of you try to think much less hear, spell, and construct sentences with a TOOTHACHE. Why did we have to have our chompers so close to our brains????

I haven't had any problem with anything you've said, for whatever that's worth. My comment about bin Laden was just me being my silly self.

I know the "telephone" game well. And I know how bad the average toothache is, so please take care of yourself. I am thoroughly enjoying our exchanges so far and hope you get better quickly!

[joypulv]

Phew. I am out of my element in this category.

[gromitt82]

"You should..." but if you don't? If you don't, how will you feel, and how will the speaker feel? There is implied guilt for not following through, implied disappointment. That was how Dr. Ellis explained "should."

Dr. Ellis is, unfortunately, no longer with us so I can hardly enter into any kind of semantic debate over the conditional "should".
If you don't go to the Los Angeles opera you will not see P.D. No guilt implied. The "should" there was not a threat or a warning, but just a piece of advice or better, still, a piece of information.

According to the English Grammar I have:

We use 'should' for giving advice.
•You should speak to him about it.
•He should see a doctor.
•We should ask a lawyer.

We use 'should' to give an opinion or a recommendation.

•He should resign now.
•We should invest more in Asia.
•They should do something about this terrible train service.

'Should' expresses a personal opinion and is much weaker and more personal than 'must' or 'have to'. It is often introduced by ' I think'.

•I think they should replace him.
•I don't think they should keep the contract.
•Do you think we should tell her?

Gromitt82