[defrost]

> That you've been using it that long is pretty bizarre to me.

Obviously.

> I guess it was just a way to stand out?

No.

> Express some personality with a bit of semantic flair?

Again, no.

> I get that.

Do you have examples of semantic flair that you use to stand out?

> just someone that doesn't like seeing ambiguity created unnecessarily

What ambiguity? Which other citizens of which other country did you honestly think I was referring to?

> or misinformation spread,

What misinfomation? I honestly and in good faith have no idea what "misinformation" you are referring to.

> but I see now you were doing it more for stylistic reasons.

For the third time. No.

Stop trying to make your contextual PoV a thing Gretchen.

This is literally no more than a useful contraction of "United States of America citizen"

[kennysoona]

> Obviously.

Yup. Should be obvious most people would share my stance also.

> Again, no.

Hmm. So why, then?

> Do you have examples of semantic flair that you use to stand out?

I don't try to stand out by being contrarian or via other semantic scheming.

> What ambiguity?

> What misinfomation?

It's confusing to at the least ESL speakers who may think it is a reasonable way to refer to people from the US and it is misinformation to suggest it is.

> For the third time. No.

Hmm.

> Stop trying to make your contextual PoV a thing Gretchen.

Not sure what Gretchen refers to, but I was just trying to assume good faith and that was the only reason I could muster. I look forward to your clarification.

> This is literally no more than a useful contraction of "United States of America citizen"

It's not useful, though - it's harmful. It creates ambiguity where this is none, and tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[defrost]

> Should be obvious most people would share my stance also.

Yes. Most people like you share your point of view. Odd that.

> So why, then?

Check your hoistory, that appears to be the first time you haven't weighed in with nothing but your PoV, preconception, and desire to impose your conclusions as the motivations of others.

Congratulations. You're evolving.

> I don't try to stand out by being contrarian or via other semantic scheming.

But you assume others do? And that makes sense to you. Okay ...

> It's confusing to at the least ESL speakers ...

Is it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42969214 suggest that not all ESL folk think that way.

> but I was just trying to assume good faith

There's been no sign of good faith and assuming the best from your comments since the first one (that appears edited) that patronisingly informed me that I should conform to your way of writing English.

> It's not useful, though - it's harmful.

Who is bleeding?

> It creates ambiguity

Again, what ambiguity? What country did you think that I was referring to?

[kennysoona]

> Yes. Most people like you share your point of view. Odd that.

You seem to have modified my statement and then taken something other than intended. Allow me to clarify. I was referring to most people as in the vast majority of the English speaking population. Not simply people like me.

> Check your hoistory, that appears to be the first time you haven't weighed in with nothing but your PoV, preconception, and desire to impose your conclusions as the motivations of others.

> Congratulations. You're evolving.

This was the answer you gave in response to my asking why you chose to use an obscure less common less well known term to refer to people of the US. All you could do is insult me in response. This leads me to believe I was correct in my previous good faith assumption.

Also, having to check post history so you can attempt to discredit me instead of just answering a simple question says a lot.

> But you assume others do? And that makes sense to you. Okay ...

As I said, it was the only good faith assumption I could come up with as to why someone would chose to use an obscure less common less well known term to refer to people from the US.

> Is it?

Without a doubt, due to being significantly less used and recognized.

> There's been no sign of good faith and assuming the best from your comments since the first one (that appears edited) that patronisingly informed me that I should conform to your way of writing English.

It wasn't patronizing, it was informing you that that term is less common and tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. My reply was a lost gamble taking the chance you were someone that ran into someone like spreading nonsense and having picked up a bad term/habit as a result, as opposed to being someone that just likes being contrarian and causes people to pick up said bad terms/habits.

> Who is bleeding?

Is drawing blood really what you limit your concept of harm to?

> Again, what ambiguity?

This was clarified in my previous reply, as were other answers to questions you repeated, but I'll repeat myself again here while continuing to assume good faith.

The ambiguity is in giving the impression that it's a valid term to refer to people from the US, when really it's not so it just creates undue confusion and ambiguity.