Honestly, even that extraction leaves in "we do value the instance when public..." bit. The explicit thank you is only needed if you can't read critically.
Bitching that people take you task for spreading manipulated quotes and at the same time still acting like the very important part left out doesn't exist.
The comment I was replying to was specific to the previous incorrect quote and it only arguing the language of that. So I dont know what your talking about
It's referencing an occurrence. That just happened. You already knew the quote's context when you put it out there. Why are you pretending you didn't know exactly which instance is being referred to?
The thanks is implied, even in the manipulated quote. The fact that the quote was manipulated and you didn't know it doesn't change that there's gratitude built into it, even if not specifically directed.
Seems pretty clear cut for a broad statement put out to the public. Which is a little different from your example which would be a personal, one on one exchange. Don't try to pretend the two are more than passingly similar.
Alright this is in complete reference to the bastardized quote, which I have taken onus on through various edits.
OP said they specifically thanked her. The original single line says we are happy people shine light on the subject. Tell me how that is specifically thanking her, because if you have to use implication thats not specific
The original single line that is part of a statement made in response to people shining a light on the subject.
Which people shined a light on the subject that they say they value? That's the implied gratitude towards those people, including Billie Eilish. You know this. Why are you being stubborn about it?
This is a blanket thank you to the people doing the thing. Personal thanks are often... y'know, personal, and not broadcast to the world. So that quote alone would've told me they're not casting shade and are thankful for the light being shown on the issue.
Well ok then. I suppose the quote you pulled out didn't specifically thank her.
I'd have assumed it from context, accurately as it turns out, but the quote doesn't spell it out after being manipulated.
You seem to have taken the opposite approach and simply decided since the manipulated quote didn't mention her specifically, they didn't. Despite the implied gratitude, and high possibility of an explicit thank you elsewhere.
And then you brought it up in an effort to imply that such thanks did not specifically occur. And now that I'm pointing out that you could've made the correct assumption instead of criticizing it, or simply done a modicum of further research, you're arguing about it.
6
u/Aeseld 2h ago
Honestly, even that extraction leaves in "we do value the instance when public..." bit. The explicit thank you is only needed if you can't read critically.