Of course it would be MOST helpful to know who Eric Levitz, Ronald Klain, Aaron Blake, and Dr. Benjamin Braddock are. I have no clue. A higher energy level post would identify all these people.
He retweeted Eric Levitz's (original) tweet. It is somewhat confusing, but the lefty reporter is complaining that the Byden bill wasn't accepted and being replaced by a "grab bag" that will expire "in Trump's second term." The WH Chief of Staff retweeting it would be implying that that would be correct. Aaron Blake, also lefty reporting saying retweets "aren't supposed to be endorsements but..." implies that he agrees. Take it for what it is worth.
Um... well... YEAH! Context is always important. To most readers, these are just random names, like Joey Bagadonuts and Joe Schmoe. Chasing down four different names to suss out a post is asking too much of most readers. So who are they?
The point is this is a research board that has become a social media website. People bitch about not being spoon fed because they aren't familiar with the info being shared. That means it's time to open up another tab and search for the relevant context. Then you get to call op a faggot for being full of shit or reinforce their post with more data. If that's too much work for 'most readers' then they need to hit the bricks or stick to lurking.
By my count there are about 5 or 6 new posts every minute. On way to keep up with the more interesting ones is to check the RISING tab, but I prefer to see what's new. No one has the kind of time you're talking about to chase all the half assed postings on GAW. I do have a life outside GAW, as astonishingly as that may seem.
If I post something, I try to include all pertinent information to prevent that kind of digging by the readers. It's common courtesy, and common clear writing.
Posts that are made in an information vacuum are just low energy posts that don't take the readers into account.
Of course it would be MOST helpful to know who Eric Levitz, Ronald Klain, Aaron Blake, and Dr. Benjamin Braddock are. I have no clue. A higher energy level post would identify all these people.
Ronald Klain - WH Chief of Staff
Eric Levitz - New York-based journalist and contributor for the New York Magazine
Aaron Blake - Senior Political Reporter for Washington Post
Dr. Benjamin Braddock - Outspoken Dr or (Dr.?) opposing coof vax
THANK YOU!!
He retweeted Eric Levitz's (original) tweet. It is somewhat confusing, but the lefty reporter is complaining that the Byden bill wasn't accepted and being replaced by a "grab bag" that will expire "in Trump's second term." The WH Chief of Staff retweeting it would be implying that that would be correct. Aaron Blake, also lefty reporting saying retweets "aren't supposed to be endorsements but..." implies that he agrees. Take it for what it is worth.
So none of the tweets are from whitehouse anything. And it still gets 200+ upvotes.
Ronald Klain - White House Chief of Staff
Ah. I don’t use Twatter and only noticed the 3 tweets. I see Klain now. This be a case where highlighting would actually help rather than detract
Um... well... YEAH! Context is always important. To most readers, these are just random names, like Joey Bagadonuts and Joe Schmoe. Chasing down four different names to suss out a post is asking too much of most readers. So who are they?
The point is this is a research board that has become a social media website. People bitch about not being spoon fed because they aren't familiar with the info being shared. That means it's time to open up another tab and search for the relevant context. Then you get to call op a faggot for being full of shit or reinforce their post with more data. If that's too much work for 'most readers' then they need to hit the bricks or stick to lurking.
By my count there are about 5 or 6 new posts every minute. On way to keep up with the more interesting ones is to check the RISING tab, but I prefer to see what's new. No one has the kind of time you're talking about to chase all the half assed postings on GAW. I do have a life outside GAW, as astonishingly as that may seem.
If I post something, I try to include all pertinent information to prevent that kind of digging by the readers. It's common courtesy, and common clear writing.
Posts that are made in an information vacuum are just low energy posts that don't take the readers into account.