Some unsolicited feedback on your communication style below. Read no further if you're not interested in it.
> One of them explained to me, how the state code was written, so that everyone is breaking some law, at any given time, and a lot of their training involved learning all these little violations, so they could pretty much justify pulling someone over, at any time.
> I suspect these bar owners did something to piss off someone in some authority. It could have been as mild as their main clientele.
In colloquial speech, like that used on this forum, these sentences in combination imply:
* My friends, state policemen, knew how to pull over people at any point
* This was an act that was commonly performed
* My friends also participated
It isn't explicit in the text, but that is the natural inference in colloquial speech.
I only mean this in a descriptive fashion. There are all sorts of reasons you may want to continue communicating the way you do, but it will get you into situations like this where you feel compelled to respond in outrage to someone else who has made that inference. Up to you how you act, but if you weren't already informed, you are now.
Some unsolicited feedback on your communication style below. Read no further if you're not interested in it.
In no way is that a natural inference in colloquial speech. Those are your own (incorrect) inferences that you're justifying post-facto, and you are (not so) subtly implying that your interpretation is the correct one and in the majority, even though it:
a) Might not be
b) Involves you making an interpretation and inferential leap that isn't contained in the text of the original poster.
In a similar fashion, you may want to continue making inferences that go beyond what people actual say or write, but it will get you into situations, like this, where you feel compelled to put things into the speaker's mouth that were not written, things that were not said, that will put you in opposition to the original speaker/author unjustifiably and based on your own interpretative error, and which generally make people less inclined to share their opinions in the future.
Additionally, your writing style appears to be one of passive-aggressive condescending superiority. This does not influence the person on the other side round towards adopting your view-point, but actually makes them bristle up and more likely to reject participation in the conversation.
Up to you how you act, but if you weren't already informed, you are now.
> One of them explained to me, how the state code was written, so that everyone is breaking some law, at any given time, and a lot of their training involved learning all these little violations, so they could pretty much justify pulling someone over, at any time.
> I suspect these bar owners did something to piss off someone in some authority. It could have been as mild as their main clientele.
In colloquial speech, like that used on this forum, these sentences in combination imply:
* My friends, state policemen, knew how to pull over people at any point
* This was an act that was commonly performed
* My friends also participated
It isn't explicit in the text, but that is the natural inference in colloquial speech.
I only mean this in a descriptive fashion. There are all sorts of reasons you may want to continue communicating the way you do, but it will get you into situations like this where you feel compelled to respond in outrage to someone else who has made that inference. Up to you how you act, but if you weren't already informed, you are now.