> 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. To me it

> 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. 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!