Here we go.

[EndlessWire]

Evidence is in. Nothing to do but wait. People are quick to say, don't anticipate a win. Well, we're not. Especially since it has been pointed out that the first part, the misdemeanor part, is no longer available to us, due to SOL expiration. At least, apparently they did not ask for lesser included. Now, it's all er nuthin. He's either a felon, or he's completely off the hook.

You know, I don't know what's worse. The thought of him weaseling out, or having to hear endlessly all the shtick he will try to drown us in. Gad, I hope he's convicted, at least so we won't have to hear the crap from him and his minions.

I was hoping for a year in jail hanging over his head, even if he isn't likely to serve it. Keeping my fingers crossed. I was surprised that the misdemeanor has disappeared. Meh. Well, at least the evidence part is done.

[Think. Again.]

1. Why would you think...

...we won't have to hear the crap from him and his minions if he's convicted?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Yet another OP forcing readers to guess context and references and meaning of title

You are an intelligent DU member. You can do better.

1. An opaque title.

2. First paragraph begins to refer to some kind of debate, but then it seems to introduce some legal elements.

3. Mysterious phrasing: "ask for lesser included".

4. There is a trend on DU that opaque references to "he" and "him" are automatically referring to tRump, who is never named in the OP here. It seems to confer too much power on "he who must not be named", such that tRump has more heft and influence and importance than the other "he" (President Joe Biden). Let's not fall into that trap.

[Irish_Dem]

4. I thought this OP was perfectly clear.

For those following current political events it is obvious what was meant.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. It becomes clear enough, but I hope my guidance yields more readable posts on DU

Readers should not have to read halfway through an OP to get the context and then be forced to start again from the beginning in order to understand it in its context.

It's about being thoughtful of the readers. Takes from writer a little bit more of time but saves hundreds of readers a little bit of time.

Most of the writing on DU is good. Some could easily be better. Omitting context is a problem of intention, not like dyslexia is a problem of neural connectivity.

I advise forming the intention and being mindful to ease the reader's task.

[Irish_Dem]

9. But at the same time we have to be realistic and fair to the authors.

The average person does not typically have advanced writing skills, or the training and experience to write for a specific audience. Or to provide the background and all the contextual clues as more seasoned authors would do.

So we also have to be thoughtful of not just the readers, but the authors of posts and comments.

We also have a situation where DU membership leans toward an older cohort group.
And they come from all walks of life, work history, with possible cultural and disability issues.

The quality of posts and comments reflect these facts.
And the ability to understand posts as well.

DU is a political discussion forum so I would rather hear a person's political opinions even if they are not
English majors. And even if they have aging issues or cultural or disability issues, etc.

I spent my academic and professional career in a rarefied atmosphere requiring high level excellent communication skills. However I very much enjoy forums and discussion groups where people are not polished writers, they let it all hang out, in common everyday vernacular. They are not pedantically laying out all the backstory and context like a PhD dissertation which can be quite boring.

Providing a writing tutorial may be helpful to some, but we have to be realistic and go with the flow.
We cannot turn people into advanced writers. And I don't think we should.

Let people do their thing.

[Wuddles440]

10. Thank you!

Well stated.

[Scrivener7]

11. It is possible that your opinion is not universal.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Indeed. And it is only an opinion. . . . nt

[Scrivener7]

13. One for which you have hijacked another person's thread.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Not my intention, but too bad. I note you yourself have yet to respond to OP. . . . nt

[Scrivener7]

15. Not your intention, but obviously what you did. Though, as you say, you don't care.

And I note that your hall monitor posts have not responded to the OP either.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Ah yes, again the "hall monitor" slur is applied to constructive criticism

The content itself of the OP neither inspired or surprised me, hence I did not respond to that aspect.

[edisdead]

8. I understood perfectly what the OP was talking about

I disliked having to read a post playing hall monitor on my way through the thread.

[Trueblue Texan]

6. I don't know if the OP made the comment in good faith...

...doubt the accuracy of the comments offered.

[Scrivener7]

16. Which comments are you finding inaccurate or being made in bad faith?

What the hell is going on in this thread?

[Trueblue Texan]

19. This is what is causing me to scratch my head over this OP

"Especially since it has been pointed out that the first part, the misdemeanor part, is no longer available to us, due to SOL expiration. At least, apparently they did not ask for lesser included. "

[Scrivener7]

20. And that is what is making you accuse the OP of bad faith? And you

find something inaccurate about that? What is inaccurate about it?

[Trueblue Texan]

21. First of all, I made no accusation, unlike you.

I merely voiced my uncertainty about whether OP posted in good faith. Second, the post seems to write off the entire case due to SOL yet there are exceptions to NY SOL laws if defendant lived out of the state. (I trust that Alvin Bragg knows the law better than the former president.) OPs claim seems to be parroting talking points tRump made on social media. So yes, I am still wondering if the post was made in good faith and compliant with DU rules.

[Scrivener7]

22. What statement of trump's is it "parroting?"

[Trueblue Texan]

23. The SOL one. nt

[EndlessWire]

26. Well

is KFA of Midas Touch parroting Trump? Because, she has 30+ years of working in NY, and especially in the Manhattan DA's office, and SHE SAID that we have lost the misdemeanor case because of the SOL. So, I don't think you know what you are talking about. I like to go with the truth, and give credence to those who have the experience to give an opinion. If you have fresh info, by all means, give it up, but otherwise look around for someone else to accuse of being a Trump supporter. It ain't me.

[Trueblue Texan]

28. I didn't SAY you acted in bad faith, but your parroting tRump's posts, I logically questioned it.

And I did so respectfully.

[EndlessWire]

24. Compliant with DU rules??

First and foremost, let me make. it. really. clear. to. YOU: I HATE Donald Trump. It's quite a burden, but he sucks the air out of the room and spreads his vile viewpoints with every breathe he takes. I am sick of him. He is a major threat to my country.

If you know that there are exceptions to the misdemeanor SOL, why couldn't you just discuss this with me and anyone else interested? Too much trouble? You don't seem to have any problem understanding what I meant now, do you?

Before you accuse a stranger of "parroting" Donald Trump, you should try reading the post. I seldom, if ever, complain to the mods about offensive things said to me. Once I initiated a complaint, but it was ignored. So, I don't really bother. But all you had to do was talk to me or anyone else interested.

"Good faith" is a subjective standard. How dare you say that to me. Simply because I didn't talk down to you and explain. every. word. of. the. post to you doesn't mean I lack good faith. This isn't a club. I read here for the humor, to double check points of view, for the news, for distraction, and for people I find pleasant. I wrote the post while writing something else, but was distracted by the close of evidence. I don't owe you a damned thing. Not one damned thing.

For those that defended me, thank you. It is greatly appreciated. For those who jumped on my back with your teeth gnashing, you are just silly. Life is too short. I have no intention of talking down to anyone, unless someone specifically asks me to do so, which you seem to have done. If you have trouble understanding something I wrote (which I don't believe you did,) just ask me. I think you just wanted to have a chance to bash another poster with your authority of "Good faith" and "DU rules." Let's just stop now.

[Trueblue Texan]

29. I respect everything you say here, but I have no idea why you've reacted so explosively.

You are right, you don’t owe me anything. But given the words you chose, people have a right to question the spirit in which you offer them. A simple explanation would suffice…who knew you were dashing off a comment in a distracted state? Could that be the reason you were misunderstood? I wasn’t rude to you, but you, like so many others on this site have chosen to be combative and rude rather than to discuss your views to facilitate understanding. Next time I have an opinion, I’ll make sure I run it by you to make sure it meets with your approval.

[EndlessWire]

27. By the way

I don't read Truth Social. Have not once. It is offensive to me, from what other people post about it. I don't read RW discussion boards, and don't read X aka Twitter, unless it is cross referenced. Just so you know me a little better. I don't feel like you do.

When did DU get a hall monitor? I'll let you know for sure if I turn RW and pledge allegiance to the Orange Turd (which was MY term), otherwise no matter how much I annoy you in your quest to find someone to punch, I can assure you that I plan to vote against Trump, if I have to crawl to the poll on hands and knees. I regard my vote as a bullet that I can fire against the bastard.

Have a nice day.

[Trueblue Texan]

30. Good! We are both voting for Biden! Nt

[TheRickles]

7. If Trump is convicted, he'll appeal. But while that process plays out, is he more likely to be out on bail, or

to start serving his sentence in prison? IANAL, but please weigh in if you are.

[Scrivener7]

18. Not sure why you're getting so much ridiculous shit on this OP. It seems

pretty clear to me, and I agree with your observations.

[Trueblue Texan]

32. TFG claims that the entire case is not valid due to SOL expiration on the misdemeanor ...

Maybe that’s not what the OP meant, but that’s the way I read it.

[Scrivener7]

34. Even after all those perfectly clear posts where he explained his position to you, apparently.

Because you're still arguing this.

[Trueblue Texan]

35. no. I'm not arguing. I'm explaining why I responded the way I did.

This is stupid. People don't always have the same perceptions, that should be ok in a discussion. There are so many attacks on this site, sometimes I wonder why I even bother coming here. Someone is always spoiling for a fight. To hell with this. I'm done with this stupid discussion.

[Scrivener7]

36. I am guessing you are not seeing the irony of your statement. Anyway, have a nice day.

[brooklynite]

25. "People are quick to say, don't anticipate a win"

Which "people"?

[LudwigPastorius]

31. "Many people are saying..."

[JoseBalow]

33. "I hear things..."