I do not know if there is nothing like complete and non-ambigous requirements. But Shrini's reply is a good example of ambiguous and incomplete presentation of an idea (I think, the same can happen to a requirement also). Let us forget the english and try to understand what he is trying to say.
<quote> Requirements are ideas represented in social context by humans </quote> Does this mean that they (requirements) cannot be correct or complete, and testers need not worry about it if they are not? Are people wasting their time when they do testability analysis, ambiguity reviews etc? I doubt. Neither do I believe that requirements are signed off knowing that they incorrect, incomplete and ambiguous!
I appreciate the school of thoughts under the banner of "Context Driven School" but do not see it as an excuse for for lack of clarity, completeness or correctness of requirements. I think this is true irrespective of whether the requirements exist in a "social context" or in a "business context". The rest of the blurb is a continuation of the same idea.
The discussion ends with a strange suggestion of thinking "how to test it" - Not sure if this means that the tester should think of testing the requirements irrespective of whether it is correct and complete!
I agree with your view. At the same time, I am of the opinion that a tester, through his reviews (for ambiguity and testability) should contribute to improving the "quality" of requirements. Many of the comments tend to reduce testing into a "craft" and ridicules people who talk about the science and process behind it.