I can not tell what point of mine you are responding to.
You were criticizing his use of “everybody knows”, and your attack did not take into account the context. You just took the phrase in isolation and talked about it. I was defending his use of the phrase as having been appropriate in the context in which he used it.
I was commenting on a phase in abstract sense and how it can often have certain effects and hence why some people interpret it as signally scholarship and implying prestige.
I took the phrase in isolation because I was only commenting on the phrase and not the context. Nothing was supposed to reflect directly on the person who made the original comment.
If you have a method of altering my original statement to communicate that more explicitly please share.
You were criticizing his use of “everybody knows”, and your attack did not take into account the context. You just took the phrase in isolation and talked about it. I was defending his use of the phrase as having been appropriate in the context in which he used it.
I had no intent of attack.
I was commenting on a phase in abstract sense and how it can often have certain effects and hence why some people interpret it as signally scholarship and implying prestige.
I took the phrase in isolation because I was only commenting on the phrase and not the context. Nothing was supposed to reflect directly on the person who made the original comment.
If you have a method of altering my original statement to communicate that more explicitly please share.
I think you’ve clarified it at sufficiently at this point, so no need.