General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Women in public, no matter how they're dressed, are not "inviting" ANYTHING. [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)On DU, any issue that stirs strong feelings will prompt responses that are aimed at the general tenor of a post, or at things that might be implied from it, or at things that other people with similar views might also say, rather than the actual words in the post.
Take one of our all-time never-goes-away hot-button issues: Ralph Nader. Suppose someone makes a comment critical of Nader's decision to run on the Green Party line in 2000. It's just about guaranteed that at least one response will stridently defend Nader's right to run. I've never seen anyone on DU take the position that Nader should have been thrown off the ballot, because his candidacy had the effect of aiding Bush, but that nonposition gets refuted again and again.
You seem to be using the term "legalese" to refer to taking extra pains to spell out what you mean and what you don't. You should recognize two points. First, meanings and connotations that are obvious to you won't be obvious to everyone. In this instance, I don't think that what constitutes "staring" is completely cut-and-dried, objective, and beyond dispute. When the responses to your comment reveal different understandings of the term, you should simply clarify your meaning without repeatedly complaining about "legalese". Second, even when comments are pretty clearly wrong, you could consider going the "legalese" route at least to the extent of specifying what you're not saying. You shouldn't have to, but you can save yourself some time that way.