|
|
|
|
|
|
by dpark
94 days ago
|
|
|
> Yes I did. I am still curious how OP expects that to be received. I’m curious why you perceive their statement to be made as if it’s a pronouncement from God and not a simply a statement of their view on the issue. > I think I agree here too. What do you mean? I mean that you both responded emotionally and communicated with an emotional appeal. You exaggerated what OP actually said and called it a mandate from God. This isn’t factual engagement. It’s emotional. |
|
|
To me it's basic grammar.
The sentence structure is approximately:
X is Y.
I consider this a statement of fact, or perhaps en equivalence relation. This is what was labeling a pronouncement from God.
(The idea that how your audience receives the communication is their problem and not yours) < X
is
(entirely why
some engineers are shit communicators and seem lost when facing the realities of human culture and politics.) < Y
Parsing it more carefully, the word "some" is leaving a hole for a lot of ambiguity that I did not see earlier.
So more careful reading reveals it as
X entirely explains property (are shit communicators) for a subset of the entities designated as engineers.
Even with these qualifies it is stating X is Y, rather than "In my experience X is Y."
I know in school I was taught to write this way. I find it confusing, and reveals something interesting about the person saying these words.
However maybe the real problem is I don't actually know what the words mean.
Perhaps I need to interpret it as the following:
In OPs view of the world, X is Y is true.
Perhaps that is what you're calling a "communication style", with a lot not being said explicitly.
Thank you for your comments, I am going to contemplate.
Edit: I just read my original comment and it is full of X is Y statements. I guess I'm full of shit. I'll try harder next time!