Really don't like the conflict between two definitions of the word "drop" in that post. "Drop" meaning to publish something new, or "drop" meaning to give up and cease doing something?
Your comment implies that a senator cannot drop legislation by virtue of being appointed and hence "unelected".
A person who knows that is not true would be led to instead believe that the person in question is being described as "unelected" because they have not yet been elected to office and therefore do not hold office.
In reality, you are using the word "unelected" as an (what you believe to be) insulting epithet to describe the fact that she's been appointed, not realising that the meaning you have communicated is that either (1) she doesn't hold office at all and therefore cannot drop legislation, or (2) she cannot drop legislation by virtue of being appointed, neither of which are true.
I can see how it implies all of that to someone who doesn't have a deep enough understand of the United States senate process to understand the context clues.
My explanation was not meant as an eli5 because you didn't ask for one.
When someone says something I don't understand, I work to expand my understanding.
If I need someone to explain something, I ask pointed questions. I don't make assumptions and then claim my confusion of those assumptions is someone else's communication problem.
I stand by my claim that there are enough context clues to figure it out.
You're claiming my explanation is inadequate. To which I can only say, I owe you nothing.
6 replies
look Alabama already grifted those contracts over Colorado
no takebacks
Really don't like the conflict between two definitions of the word "drop" in that post. "Drop" meaning to publish something new, or "drop" meaning to give up and cease doing something?
The context clues are enough.
An unelected senator can't drop legislation because they can only drop legislation they've proposed and an unelected senator doesn't have any.
I think your comment also needs some work.
I can see how it implies all of that to someone who doesn't have a deep enough understand of the United States senate process to understand the context clues.
My explanation was not meant as an eli5 because you didn't ask for one.
When someone says something I don't understand, I work to expand my understanding.
If I need someone to explain something, I ask pointed questions. I don't make assumptions and then claim my confusion of those assumptions is someone else's communication problem.
I stand by my claim that there are enough context clues to figure it out.
You're claiming my explanation is inadequate. To which I can only say, I owe you nothing.
I do not claim you "owe" me anything. I'm offering feedback on your communication. You are free to reject that feedback and call me names if you want.