But that just means its issue is it's verbally unfamiliar, no?
Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.
Pokémon Blue. That's the stuff dreams are made of.
How could anyone perceive it any other way?
And yet it's both grammatically and semantically correct.
It's not near where I live now (I haven't been to enough places here yet), but if you're ever in New York and come across a town called Fillmore, treat it like the plague.
My work barely overlaps with peoples' attitudes, but I wouldn't say I don't have my own reaction to this observation.
Welp, there goes anyone's claims here of being an authentic political theorist/scholar/analyst.
Perhaps, based on that, the issue is expectations. One expects a certain outcome from how someone is explaining something and is thrown off-guard when it takes a twist. Though that's not really anyone's fault. I relate too well to the other perspective, as a non-native speaker who is, in some way, also neurodivergent, as well as a writer immersed in mental exercises. I just have had a kind of faith that one might say it's a universally trainable skill (think math or jigsaw puzzles) rather than seemingly innate. I may read The Wheel of Time and War and Peace just fine if I don't establish my own upper limit to complexity. Interactive AI, through their lack of the issue we discuss, implicitly show us that "unintelligible" and "complex" may overlap but don't necessarily have to.