> Yes. Most people like you share your point of view. Odd that.

You seem to have modified my statement and then taken something other than intended. Allow me to clarify. I was referring to most people as in the vast majority of the English speaking population. Not simply people like me.

> Check your hoistory, that appears to be the first time you haven't weighed in with nothing but your PoV, preconception, and desire to impose your conclusions as the motivations of others.

> Congratulations. You're evolving.

This was the answer you gave in response to my asking why you chose to use an obscure less common less well known term to refer to people of the US. All you could do is insult me in response. This leads me to believe I was correct in my previous good faith assumption.

Also, having to check post history so you can attempt to discredit me instead of just answering a simple question says a lot.

> But you assume others do? And that makes sense to you. Okay ...

As I said, it was the only good faith assumption I could come up with as to why someone would chose to use an obscure less common less well known term to refer to people from the US.

> Is it?

Without a doubt, due to being significantly less used and recognized.

> There's been no sign of good faith and assuming the best from your comments since the first one (that appears edited) that patronisingly informed me that I should conform to your way of writing English.

It wasn't patronizing, it was informing you that that term is less common and tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. My reply was a lost gamble taking the chance you were someone that ran into someone like spreading nonsense and having picked up a bad term/habit as a result, as opposed to being someone that just likes being contrarian and causes people to pick up said bad terms/habits.

> Who is bleeding?

Is drawing blood really what you limit your concept of harm to?

> Again, what ambiguity?

This was clarified in my previous reply, as were other answers to questions you repeated, but I'll repeat myself again here while continuing to assume good faith.

The ambiguity is in giving the impression that it's a valid term to refer to people from the US, when really it's not so it just creates undue confusion and ambiguity.