I think staggering is the call here.

[emsr2d2]

You understood what I wanted to say correctly. Why would "staggering" not be clear to all readers?

I didn't understand what you meant until post #3, in which you gave additional context. Like jutfrank, I don't think "stagger" really works in the context given. I'd still go with what I already suggested - "splitting/separating" work OK.

 

[jutfrank]

I think 'spreading them out' works well to say what you mean, though I'm not totally sure what it is you want to do.

 

[ghoul]

I think 'spreading them out' works well to say what you mean, though I'm not totally sure what it is you want to do.

I think so too.

I'll speak for myself. I had no idea that you were using 'staggering' as a verb. I thought it was an adjective. Furthermore, as a verb it's transitive so it needs an object. Like I said before, if you'd said 'staggering them', it would have shown that you were using a verb, and the sense of the sentence would have been a lot clearer.

Even so, the verb 'stagger' doesn't seem to be the right verb to say what you mean.

I understand the first part but why is the verb "stagger" not the right one to say what I mean in this situation if I use it in conjunction(?) with an object(?).
After all, one Cambridge Dictionary definition of it is "to arrange for things like holidays, working hours, or payments to happen at different times so that they are easier to manage".
Granted, it says "business English" as the context for this definition, so maybe I was using it in an inappropriate context?
But what about this definition: "to arrange events or schedules so that they happen at different times"? Doesn't that apply to this situation or am I perhaps misunderstanding the word "events" as "things that happen" in general rather than as "public occasions" etc.?

 

[jutfrank]

Here's what I think is a good way in to the core metaphorical meaning of the verb 'stagger' (in the sense that you're looking at in the dictionary).

Imagine you're the organiser of the Berlin Marathon. Every year, there are 50,000 people who want to take part. Now, it would be very problematic to let everybody start running all at the same time with a single starting time, right? If you start the race at 9.00 am, you're going to have serious problems of congestion, what with 50,000 people all running through the streets at the same time. So what's the solution?

 

[ghoul]

Here's what I think is a good way in to the core metaphorical meaning of the verb 'stagger' (in the sense that you're looking at in the dictionary).

Imagine you're the organiser of the Berlin Marathon. Every year, there are 50,000 people who want to take part. Now, it would be very problematic to let everybody start running all at the same time with a single starting time, right? If you start the race at 9.00 am, you're going to have serious problems of congestion, what with 50,000 people all running through the streets at the same time. So what's the solution?

To stagger. But I still don't get how that word isn't appliable to my situation.

 

[SoothingDave]

It is. Many here aren't used to the idea of using the word that way, so they reject it. I understood what you meant.

 

[emsr2d2]

It is. Many here aren't used to the idea of using the word that way, so they reject it. I understood what you meant.

Did you understand it without the context that was given later? Did you understand what "I think staggering is the call here" meant before the OP posted the info in post #3?

 

[SoothingDave]

I didn't know exactly what he was staggering, but I did understand that he was making a decision to stagger something.

 

[jutfrank]

I thought staggering my sentences across multiple messages instead of putting them all into one was a good idea cause they were asking me to make my argument shorter.

I don't really understand this. Can you explain it more clearly? What sentences? What messages? What argument? How can staggering sentences across messages make an argument shorter?

 

[SoothingDave]

It forced him to make it like bullet points and not like a stream of writing.

 

[jutfrank]

It forced him to make it like bullet points and not like a stream of writing.

Oh, so 'stagger' is the right word? Okay.

 

[ghoul]

I don't really understand this. Can you explain it more clearly? What sentences? What messages? What argument? How can staggering sentences across messages make an argument shorter?

I realized I wasn't clear enough again; I needed to figure out a way to shorten the argument I made in the sentences marked in green. But I couldn't figure out a way to actually do that so instead I attempted to split the single points up as much as I can which makes the argument less overwhelming because that's what they implied the issue was.

Me:
I think you confuse jumping to conclusions immediately with being smart
I've had a lot of experience with you so called normal people overassuming things and being wrong
cause you basically just rely on social norms to see if something is sus or not
but we met on 4chan so everything is possible in my mind

Them:
U rlly have to learn to sum things up into a sentence or 2
I do not like u enough to read all that

Me:
okay I'm gonna rewrite it
you're right
that comes with increased language skills
I think staggering it is the call here
Don't you confuse jumping to conclusions immediately with being smart?

 

[jutfrank]

I can't tell if post #32 has helped me understand or has made me even more confused than before. I can't see any 'argument' in the green lines. It just looks and sounds like a semi-coherent unpunctuated comment, not an argument of the kind someone like Aristotle would have made. And moreover, it is made up of only two sentences (the first line is a sentence and the next three are a single sentence). Is two full sentences considered an epic text among you zoomers?

No offence to you ghoul, but I like Them's line "I do not like you enough to read all that" an awful lot. It's a line I could use for my own life.

 

[teechar]

Them's line

Why not "their line"? You could have highlighted "their" somehow.

 

[jutfrank]

Why not "their line"? You could have highlighted "their" somehow.

This is what I naturally did at first:

'Them''s

But as you can see, the latter of the two inverted commas enclosing 'Them' is now juxtaposed to the apostrophe, and it looks awful, don't you think?

I didn't want to use 'their'.

 

[teechar]

I didn't want to use 'their'.

Why not?

 

[ghoul]

I can't tell if post #32 has helped me understand or has made me even more confused than before. I can't see any 'argument' in the green lines. It just looks and sounds like a semi-coherent unpunctuated comment, not an argument of the kind someone like Aristotle would have made.

I thought "argument" could also mean "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong". The definitions of "comment" I've found, "a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction", also seems to apply to what it was. I had to look up the definition of "Aristotelian argument"; yeah, it's not that.
And it's also semi-coherent because a lot of context is missing and you're right about the rest of your description. It's without punctuation because that's how youngsters type, silly!!! ^_^ (Just kidding, you're smart...)

And moreover, it is made up of only two sentences (the first line is a sentence and the next three are a single sentence). Is two full sentences considered an epic text among you zoomers?

Yes, unironically. Tiktok fried everyones' brains. Besides, I'm a guy and my chat partner is a girl and a lot of young girls' DMs get flooded by guys competing over their attention. Some girls are aware that it means they can call the shots and develop this sort of I'm-not-even-gonna-read-that-attitude and are very quick to just ditch you for the next guy if they even slightly dislike you.

No offence to you ghoul, but I like Them's line "I do not like you enough to read all that" an awful lot. It's a line I could use for my own life.

Expand on that. I feel like a lot of people are like that but ignore what you've said rather than admitting it openly.

 

[jutfrank]

I thought "argument" could also mean "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong".

I can't see the link between that definition and what you say. What action or idea are you defending/attacking? Are you not simply saying that whatever she thought about you is wrong, and that she jumped to a false conclusion?

I had to look up the definition of "Aristotelian argument"; yeah, it's not that.

Yes, it's definitely not that.

And it's also semi-coherent because a lot of context is missing and you're right about the rest of your description. It's without punctuation because that's how youngsters type, silly!!! ^_^ (Just kidding, you're smart...)

Be assured that I'm very well aware of how youngsters type, and talk. I get paid to teach them not to do it.

Yes, unironically. Tiktok fried everyones' brains. Besides, I'm a guy and my chat partner is a girl and a lot of young girls' DMs get flooded by guys competing over their attention. Some girls are aware that it means they can call the shots and develop this sort of I'm-not-even-gonna-read-that-attitude and are very quick to just ditch you for the next guy if they even slightly dislike you.

I see.

Expand on that. I feel like a lot of people are like that but ignore what you've said rather than admitting it openly.

I just thought it was a funny insult. I was joking about using it in my own life.

 

[ghoul]

I can't see the link between that definition and what you say. What action or idea are you defending/attacking? Are you not simply saying that whatever she thought about you is wrong, and that she jumped to a false conclusion?

The excerpt I showed you was part of a larger discussion where I was attacking her idea of thinking I'm an autistic r-word which she bases on a bunch of behaviours I exhibited(?)/showed and I was explaining my thought process behind those and also pointing out how she was too quick to draw conclusions to argue(?) why I'm not an autistic r-word.
I feel like discussing this technicality(?)/detail is too overwhelming for me. How about you give your final opinion on whether "staggering" would theoretically work and feels right to use for what I intended it to mean, i.e. splitting the message up and send the bits to her over a period of time (as a means to make it less overwhelming to her)?

Be assured that I'm very well aware of how youngsters type, and talk. I get paid to teach them not to do it.

 

[5jj]

okay I'm gonna rewrite it
you're right
that comes with increased language skills
I think staggering it is the call here
Don't you confuse jumping to conclusions immediately with being smart?

How about you give your final opinion on whether "staggering" would theoretically work and feels right to use for what I intended it to mean, i.e. splitting the message up and send the bits to her over a period of time (as a means to make it less overwhelming to her)?

The line I have underlined means nothing to me without your explanation.

It would be more transparent as Perhaps I should split the message up and send the bits to you one at a time.

It occurs to me that this may not be the right forum for you. Most of the people who respond here are interested in correct/appropriate standard English, and most of us are at least fifty. We can help people understand the informal language of younger people, but we can't tell you what younger people would actually say or write in casual speech or writing.