J.R.

The answer concludes: Americans must work two jobs to "keep our roof over our head" could be interpreted to mean that most or all Americans are either working two jobs or experiencing homelessness. There are more options than that, though. For example, a young married couple might be living with his or her parents because they can't afford rent or a mortgage. Those two would not be homeless, but they still can't afford to keep a roof over their heads - be it with one job or two.

@JasonBassford This comment got moved to chat because the conversation got long. But this is worth fleshing out as an answer to the question when you have the time.

It should be unfrozen now, though.

@Mari-LouA I thought leaving a comment would unfreeze the room. Apparently not.

We need to keep that on hand as good justification, in case we ever propose this

I thought you might appreciate this comment:

@Mari-LouA So, remember a month ago, when we were talking about your really cool idea about easy-to-embed audio clips?

Oh, and I thought the whole answer was well-written and keenly insightful.

@Mari-LouA Thanks for the props today. It gave me a much-needed smile.

If she's not reinstated by hat season, I don't know if I'll stay on the Exchange.

@Mari-LouA I kind of feel the same way.

The ironic thing is that Monica could probably run in a moderator election now on just about any SE site and win in a landslide

@Mari-LouA You know, for a minute, I thought Sara had been suspended. Then I realized, "No, her reputation had merely plummeted down to 1."

To answer your other question, I really don't know anything about Monica, other than she was actively involved on several sites and perhaps one of the most exemplary members of the SE community. Based on my occasional observations and my rare interactions with her, I thought she embodied the spirit of constructiveness and being "nice".

@Mari-LouA You asked about my avatar, so I figured it was better to answer in chat. Yes, I made it myself. For the sake of the site as a whole, I didn't want to stop moderating; however, I didn't want to be complacent, either. Also, I didn't really have anything to say that hadn't already been said, so I figured a changed avatar might be a good way for me to (a) proclaim public support and (b) decry the actions that were taken by Sara Chipps & Co.

Wow! What a mess. We will bring this up one day. But not today.

@Mari-LouA I saw your message awhile ago but just now figured out what you were alluding to.

It's your idea, so you could do that, but if you thought it might get a better reception coming from an ELL mod, I'd be willing to write something up.

@Mari-LouA What do you think? Now that the dust has settled, should we bring up the idea on meta.SE? I think it's a really good idea and should be proposed higher up.

@Mari-LouA It was a fantastic example, actually

And I smiled when I heard you say "Gobbledygook" :-)

@Mari-LouA Whether the audio file matches the text or not, I still think it supports your point well.

It's another great example of where an audio answer would be extremely helpful. Way better than "You sub a of x".

P.S. See this question: ell.stackexchange.com/questions/225348/…

As for rolling back the edit to match the recording, I find that kind of ironic, since that was one of the first objections raised. If it was really all that trivial to post recordings, we could have easily updated the recording to match the revised question instead.

You didn't post them in a separate answer, you refuted them in a separate answer. And most of that time, your original question still said, "Disadvantages: None." But at least we are discussing the issue and you're getting a better idea of where I was coming from.

@Mari-LouA "I didn't stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that disadvantages existed. I posted them in a separate answer."

So I apologize for that in advance.

Again, I would have preferred to discuss the matter first, but time is short for me right now.

It's too bad we've never been in this chat room at the same time, but I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I am going to edit your question in a way that will eliminate any of my misgivings and make me an ardent supporter. You can roll it back if you think I've weakened your proposal instead of strengthening it.

I used to tell my kids a lot, "Marketing is everything." Rightly on wrongly, sometimes it's not the idea itself that causes a proposal to sink or swim, it's they way that idea is presented. Sometimes little things impede buy-in.

I just noticed now that you edited your meta discussion and changed "None" to "Are there any serious drawbacks?" I still wish you had simply ended your list of advantages and left it at that.

@Mari-LouA By the way, I wouldn't say the general reception has been "worse than lukewarm." There hasn't been a torrent of support, but, if anything, it's been slightly better than lukewarm.

(I'm not saying you need to list them. I was just hoping you would cut those two words out of your proposal.)

I have thought all along that the advantages to this proposal far outweigh the disadvantages. But, by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that any disadvantages even exist, you made it very hard for me to get on board as a staunch ally.

As I said early on, such a bold proclamation invites nitpicking and criticism, which can lead to protracted arguments.

I doubt that's how you meant it, but that's how it read to me.

Disadvantages: None sets a tone. It implies, "There are no disadvantages to my proposal. Anyone that sees any potential disadvantages, therefore, is a fool, and isn't as enlightened as I am."

@Mari-LouA It's not that you didn't list any disadvantages. It's that you flatly said: "Disadvanages: None." There is a huge difference between the two.

Just accept that some people might see potential drawbacks.

That's the first time you've seen that advice because I've always felt at an impasse. Had you deleted out the Disadvantages: None part a long time ago you would have found me an ardent supporter indeed. I think it's a good idea that ought to be elevated. But it's bad form to just dismiss any potential drawbacks out of hand.

@Mari-LouA I stand corrected but I also stand by my comment. I think the overall post would be improved by deleting that Disadvantages: None bit and by culling the advantages to the most relevant ones and taking the other ones out.

@Mari-LouA - Yes, and when I wrote that, your proposal looked like this.

Nor mine. I tried editing Mari-Lou's question once; she rolled it back. I'd be an ardent supporter with the changes I've suggested in my comment to you. Without those changes, though, I can only say that it's not an ELL decision to make, and I hope we'll be more careful in the language of the proposal if it goes forward. I recommend that we get out of the business of shooting down naysayers and instead strengthen the proposal by cutting out fluff and marketing it as an SE feature that would be especially helpful on its many language sites (16 and counting, I believe).

I'll be candid. First, I like the idea, and have since it was originally proposed. But the idea needs to be elevated to meta, and, before that happens, it should be polished up. First, delete that bit that says: Disadvantages: None. (That's just not good form; it's condescending.) Second, trim down the list of advantages to the heavy-hitters (I especially like Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6; I don't think it would be wise to tout this as "dyslexic-friendly" because we are talking about short sound clips, not entire answers.) Third, don't act like it's trivial, it may not be easy to code the back end.

I only used the word "insurmountable" because of your comment: "it's disingenuous to imply that there's some kind of technological gap here which SE can't overcome". (I wasn't sure who or what that was directed at.) But back to your answer here; it says: It seems perverse, therefore, to not let users use sound files in otherwise well constructed and well researched questions. Who is not letting users use sound files?

I don't know who implied there was an "insurmountable technological gap," but it wasn't me. I said early on that I thought this idea had merit, and that being able to embed an audio clip just as easily as we can now embed an image would be helpful feature not just on ELL, but on all of SE's language sites.

I didn't click on the links, so I didn't realize they didn't still work. My larger point still stands, though: no one is "prohibiting" anyone from incorporating an audio file into an answer, as Mari-Lou has done here in her question.