mc2fool wrote:XFool wrote:OMG. In that case I gave explicit links to that in my original post (not my OP "original post" on this thread...).
On the previous page I see. Yes, it passed me by, it didn't seem important.
Oh well...
Plus note my later edit:
" In that case I both repeated what she had said (the gist, in my words, from memory) and gave an explicit link to her archived Twitter post in my original post (not my OP "original post" on this thread...). I cannot control whether people choose to follow them or not. That is entirely up to the reader, surely?"
mc2fool wrote:But on the "said it", said, "said" and didn't say, if you thought that was clear then that's your view I guess. A simple addition of "others incorrectly claimed s/he said" would have made it a lot clearer, and that's my view.
Well, I could provide a TLF link to my own post. But that seems to me increasingly not to be the real issue here.
mc2fool wrote:XFool wrote:Plus, a certain base level of knowledge is surely necessarily assumed by people interested in/discussing a particular issue? Do I have to explain who "Trump" is? Do I have to explain what a "President" is? Do I have to explain what "the USA" is? Do I have to explain who "Greta Thunberg" is? Do I have to start with "A is for Apple, B is for Breakfast..."?
Don't be silly.
Well, I really don't know. Because I don't know what other people don't know. And because I already provided all the relevant facts in my post. (See above).
Strangely one of the things I don't know is what TLF posts TLF posters haven't read. A bit like I don't know how many times my home was NOT struck by lightening last year.
mc2fool wrote:XFool wrote:I only know what I know, I cannot know what others do not know.
Indeed, so if you assume what other people know then you might find that people think you come across as cryptic....
We all have to "assume" at some level - we are not machines that download our brains to each other on first contact. When the person you are responding to quotes a 'fact' I - perhaps it's just me? - feel it reasonable to assume that they do know about the 'fact' they are quoting. Perhaps I am mistaken? In which case, all bets are very definitely off...
Everything is "cryptic" if you don't know what it is about. But then, either you ask (that's what I do), or presumably, you cannot really be very interested so... a question asked more than once on TLF: "Why are you even reading it?"