5 ms·

That seems to be your own connotative reading, not what is actually written in the text. Had the actual written meaning been exclusively those tasked with inte

That seems to be your own connotative reading, not what is actually written in the text. Had the actual written meaning been exclusively those tasked with integrating training, then the wording would have said so. As it is currently written, the intended audience is all soldiers.

WJW 5y ago
If a non-trainer soldier wants to read it, they are welcome to do so and the manuals will never turn away willing students (unless it is classified material of course). But regular soldiers are not the primary audience of this document.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  Again, the document clearly states that Soldiers are the intended audience. In plain English. In the second sentence. Your interpretation, irrespective of accuracy, is at odds with what is written in the actual document.
  - stevenhuang 5y ago
    Soldiers being the intended audience does not mean _all_ soldiers must read it. What's so hard to understand about that?
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      > Soldiers being the intended audience does not mean _all_ soldiers must read it. What's so hard to understand about that? Apparently a lot, based on some of the replies in this sub-thread. I, on the other hand, fully agree with you and have no trouble understanding this distinction. The poster to which my original comment was a response to, however, claimed that soldiers were not the intended audience.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        A possible point of confusion is that 'soldier' means different things in different contexts. Sometimes 'soldier' means anyone in the Army. Sometimes 'soldier' means anyone in the Army but not commissioned officers. Sometimes 'soldier' means only private members of the Army. In this case obviously 'soldiers' are intended to read it - as people in the Army are intended to read it. But also 'soldiers' are not intended to read it, as private soldiers would normally get training and would not have to read it. Reading requires context and domain knowledge. If you have context and domain knowledge, this document is perfectly clear on the audience. (I've had multiple training jobs in the (British) Army.)
chrisseaton 5y ago
Well I don't know what else to tell you - common sense tells you this definitely isn't what they mean. Junior soldiers are not expected to read documents like this.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  Your interpretation, irrespective of accuracy, is at odds with what is written in the actual document. If it is true that junior soldiers are not expected to read a document such as this, then the document should not state that the intended audience is soldiers. A military manual is not a James Joyce novel. If the manual says the intended audience is soldiers, then you should not be able to come in and say 'actually, regardless of what they wrote, that's not what they really meant'.
  - moshmosh 5y ago
    > Included in the intended audience are Soldiers... "We tried to make this understandable by Soldiers, among others, as far as reading level and expected context & background knowledge" > ...particularly those tasked with integrating ASA concepts into training "This subset of soldiers are the ones we mostly expect to read it, or to be required to read it, though, so expect that the content is tuned to and most suitable for their needs" Nowhere does it say that all soldiers read this or that anyone expects that a typical soldier be required to read it. They are stating the background of their intended audience (Soldier, among others, should suffice) and those whom they expect to be best-served by the document ("those tasked with integrating ASA concepts into training"). This sentence is about as clear as English gets, to the point that I'm baffled this exchange is taking place. It says nothing about "junior soldiers [being] expected to read a document such as this". > A military manual is not a James Joyce novel. If the manual says the intended audience is soldiers, then you should not be able to come in and say 'actually, regardless of what they wrote, that's not what they really meant'. Your confidence and repeated insistence that your reading is correct here is not warranted. You're wrong. It is not ambiguous whether you're wrong.
    - Ansil849 5y ago

WJW 5y ago

If a non-trainer soldier wants to read it, they are welcome to do so and the manuals will never turn away willing students (unless it is classified material of course). But regular soldiers are not the primary audience of this document.

Ansil849 5y ago
Again, the document clearly states that Soldiers are the intended audience. In plain English. In the second sentence. Your interpretation, irrespective of accuracy, is at odds with what is written in the actual document.
- stevenhuang 5y ago
  Soldiers being the intended audience does not mean _all_ soldiers must read it. What's so hard to understand about that?
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > Soldiers being the intended audience does not mean _all_ soldiers must read it. What's so hard to understand about that? Apparently a lot, based on some of the replies in this sub-thread. I, on the other hand, fully agree with you and have no trouble understanding this distinction. The poster to which my original comment was a response to, however, claimed that soldiers were not the intended audience.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      A possible point of confusion is that 'soldier' means different things in different contexts. Sometimes 'soldier' means anyone in the Army. Sometimes 'soldier' means anyone in the Army but not commissioned officers. Sometimes 'soldier' means only private members of the Army. In this case obviously 'soldiers' are intended to read it - as people in the Army are intended to read it. But also 'soldiers' are not intended to read it, as private soldiers would normally get training and would not have to read it. Reading requires context and domain knowledge. If you have context and domain knowledge, this document is perfectly clear on the audience. (I've had multiple training jobs in the (British) Army.)

chrisseaton 5y ago

Well I don't know what else to tell you - common sense tells you this definitely isn't what they mean. Junior soldiers are not expected to read documents like this.

Ansil849 5y ago
Your interpretation, irrespective of accuracy, is at odds with what is written in the actual document. If it is true that junior soldiers are not expected to read a document such as this, then the document should not state that the intended audience is soldiers. A military manual is not a James Joyce novel. If the manual says the intended audience is soldiers, then you should not be able to come in and say 'actually, regardless of what they wrote, that's not what they really meant'.
- moshmosh 5y ago
  > Included in the intended audience are Soldiers... "We tried to make this understandable by Soldiers, among others, as far as reading level and expected context & background knowledge" > ...particularly those tasked with integrating ASA concepts into training "This subset of soldiers are the ones we mostly expect to read it, or to be required to read it, though, so expect that the content is tuned to and most suitable for their needs" Nowhere does it say that all soldiers read this or that anyone expects that a typical soldier be required to read it. They are stating the background of their intended audience (Soldier, among others, should suffice) and those whom they expect to be best-served by the document ("those tasked with integrating ASA concepts into training"). This sentence is about as clear as English gets, to the point that I'm baffled this exchange is taking place. It says nothing about "junior soldiers [being] expected to read a document such as this". > A military manual is not a James Joyce novel. If the manual says the intended audience is soldiers, then you should not be able to come in and say 'actually, regardless of what they wrote, that's not what they really meant'. Your confidence and repeated insistence that your reading is correct here is not warranted. You're wrong. It is not ambiguous whether you're wrong.
  - Ansil849 5y ago