4 ms·

> When the FBI agents stopped to have a drink I thought You mean "when I read the part where the FBI agents stopped to have a drink I thought"? This part make

by remram 2y ago

> When the FBI agents stopped to have a drink I thought You mean "when I read the part where the FBI agents stopped to have a drink I thought"? This part makes your comment super confusing. Where you there then or later?

coldtea 2y ago
It's obvious what is meant given the context...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
inopinatus 2y ago
I believe they are suggesting an experience of imaginatively visualising the events of the arrest linearly as they were narrated in their read-through of the article, serendipitously aided by being physically present at the same location, and are referencing the article's narration partially in the present tense to similarly immerse us in medias res as we follow their remark. Alternatively, they are themselves Ross Ulbricht, describing an out-of-body fever dream or post-traumatic flashback. This seems ... somewhat less likely.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - defrost 2y ago
    In commonwealth english "they" can and frequently does work to indicate a singular person. Here it's clear the word is referring to a singular stranger.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    What word would you use instead in this specific case?
    - InDubioProRubio 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        Ok, and in this case, those pronouns are...?
        InDubioProRubio 2y ago
        I dont know, ask the commenter - he who reads OPs story and comments on it, projects himself into it when commenting on it.. there is no fixed answer to this.
        oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        There is a fixed answer: the neutral pronoun "they" which English speakers have been using for 700 years.
        defrost 2y ago
        If you're not a native English speaker and need help with this then do feel free to ask. Many of us here have spoken English since birth and correctly used "they" in the manner above for several decades.
      - oharapj 2y ago
        It's so funny how outrage poisoned partisans have such crushing issues with pronouns. The word 'They' has been used to refer to individuals for hundreds of years. Get a life
        Nevermark 2y ago
        > It's so funny how outrage poisoned partisans have such crushing issues with pronouns. They might just be illiterate. Let’s all be charitable.
      - 2y ago
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Singular "they" dates at least back as far as the 14th century, and I've yet to meet a person who objects to it but does not use it themselves now and again without even noticing if you observe them speak enough. It's entirely integral to English. The interlude during which some pushed for "they" to be exclusively plural, was a mere brief blip in the history of the language. It's also a couple of centuries older than singular "you", so if you want to complain about a pronoun changing between singular and plural, that's a better candidate.
wolfgang42 2y ago
I thought that starting my story in media res would make for a better dramatic effect, but it seems I overestimated my audience and went a little too heavy on the narrative ellipsis.
- sdwr 2y ago
  Boo! Don't blame the audience! > Then Ulbricht walked into the public library and sat down at the table directly in front of me, and suddenly as I was reading I could look up and see exactly the chair he had been in, where the plainclothes police had positioned themselves, how they had arranged a distraction. Alternately: > Ulbricht had walked into the public library gives the game away. If you still want to play around a bit: > I could see where Ulbricht walked into the public library. The table he sat at. I looked up and saw where the plainclothes police had positioned themselves, how they had arranged a distraction. That way you are leaving some ambiguity, but are not directly lying with the tenses.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    Well, a lot of times the audience is to blame... There are many people that are stupid, aren't trained in style figures of writing or just not trained in reading in a way that allows for complex conceptual frameworks. It also happens in software: someone writes great code, it's very complex and some people don't understand it and blame the author of writing unreadable code. Its easy to call something unreadable if you don't understand what it's saying. Let me bring it differently: it takes two to tango. I found his story interesting and engaging. Let me bring it in another way: Sometimes the joke is brilliant, but the audience just doesn't understand it. It's not a bad joke or a bad comedian. It's a bad audience. To go into the meat of this: he is imagining it while reading in the same location as the incident happened. This is a style of writing. It's definitely not wrong.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      To paraphrase the asshole quote: "if one person misunderstands you, that's their fault; if everyone does, it's yours". The same goes for your comedian analogy: sure, you can tell a brilliant joke in French to a Chinese audience, but why?

by remram 2y ago

coldtea 2y ago

It's obvious what is meant given the context...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

inopinatus 2y ago

I believe they are suggesting an experience of imaginatively visualising the events of the arrest linearly as they were narrated in their read-through of the article, serendipitously aided by being physically present at the same location, and are referencing the article's narration partially in the present tense to similarly immerse us in medias res as we follow their remark. Alternatively, they are themselves Ross Ulbricht, describing an out-of-body fever dream or post-traumatic flashback. This seems ... somewhat less likely.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 2y ago
  In commonwealth english "they" can and frequently does work to indicate a singular person. Here it's clear the word is referring to a singular stranger.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  What word would you use instead in this specific case?
  - InDubioProRubio 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      Ok, and in this case, those pronouns are...?
      - InDubioProRubio 2y ago
        I dont know, ask the commenter - he who reads OPs story and comments on it, projects himself into it when commenting on it.. there is no fixed answer to this.
        oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        There is a fixed answer: the neutral pronoun "they" which English speakers have been using for 700 years.
        defrost 2y ago
        If you're not a native English speaker and need help with this then do feel free to ask. Many of us here have spoken English since birth and correctly used "they" in the manner above for several decades.
    - oharapj 2y ago
      It's so funny how outrage poisoned partisans have such crushing issues with pronouns. The word 'They' has been used to refer to individuals for hundreds of years. Get a life
      - Nevermark 2y ago
        > It's so funny how outrage poisoned partisans have such crushing issues with pronouns. They might just be illiterate. Let’s all be charitable.
    - 2y ago
- vidarh 2y ago
  Singular "they" dates at least back as far as the 14th century, and I've yet to meet a person who objects to it but does not use it themselves now and again without even noticing if you observe them speak enough. It's entirely integral to English. The interlude during which some pushed for "they" to be exclusively plural, was a mere brief blip in the history of the language. It's also a couple of centuries older than singular "you", so if you want to complain about a pronoun changing between singular and plural, that's a better candidate.

wolfgang42 2y ago

I thought that starting my story in media res would make for a better dramatic effect, but it seems I overestimated my audience and went a little too heavy on the narrative ellipsis.

sdwr 2y ago
Boo! Don't blame the audience! > Then Ulbricht walked into the public library and sat down at the table directly in front of me, and suddenly as I was reading I could look up and see exactly the chair he had been in, where the plainclothes police had positioned themselves, how they had arranged a distraction. Alternately: > Ulbricht had walked into the public library gives the game away. If you still want to play around a bit: > I could see where Ulbricht walked into the public library. The table he sat at. I looked up and saw where the plainclothes police had positioned themselves, how they had arranged a distraction. That way you are leaving some ambiguity, but are not directly lying with the tenses.
- pineaux 2y ago
  Well, a lot of times the audience is to blame... There are many people that are stupid, aren't trained in style figures of writing or just not trained in reading in a way that allows for complex conceptual frameworks. It also happens in software: someone writes great code, it's very complex and some people don't understand it and blame the author of writing unreadable code. Its easy to call something unreadable if you don't understand what it's saying. Let me bring it differently: it takes two to tango. I found his story interesting and engaging. Let me bring it in another way: Sometimes the joke is brilliant, but the audience just doesn't understand it. It's not a bad joke or a bad comedian. It's a bad audience. To go into the meat of this: he is imagining it while reading in the same location as the incident happened. This is a style of writing. It's definitely not wrong.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    To paraphrase the asshole quote: "if one person misunderstands you, that's their fault; if everyone does, it's yours". The same goes for your comedian analogy: sure, you can tell a brilliant joke in French to a Chinese audience, but why?