<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=285167.msg14112751#msg14112751">Quote from: Triggvi on 02-05-2018, 19:22:43</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">She said discussed not decided and 4 of the 6 share holders did support it and then we moved on to the discussion of the first captaincy.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Now I'm really confused. Which "it" are you referring to that you see four of six shareholders supporting? Only Max directly addresses the timeframe element, with a noncommital 'might.' The others start talking about 'who,' not 'how long,' and there are two people supporting Theo that I count, four if you include people who said "maybe" he'd work out...And Ghrreigh is who tossed his name in the hat, so I don't think it's suggestable that she's arguing against that.<br/><br/>When one uses the phrase "that has been discussed" in the past tense in common English, it usually means "the discussion is over." And in that fashion most native users use it as being equal to "a decision has been made and is no longer up for discussion." That is exactly the manner in which Adrianna uses it in this post (https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=14111238;topic=285467.75;last_msg=14113174). She uses it as an attempt to suggest that the discussion is over. Twice.<br/><br/>That's a very specific argumentative tactic. I thought Adrianna was using it ICly as a bluff. Now I'm not sure.<br/><br/>It is, however, the sort of barracks-lawyering weasel-wording that an officer listens for. Thus Ghrreigh's response.