Talk:United States v. Strong

Grammar too advanced
Here is the excerpt that i selected

As he was going through security Strong informed the court security officer that he needed to use the bathroom, was told he had to pass through security, defecated, and was escorted to the restroom, in that order; about ten minutes later, he headed to the clerk's office.

Its pretty confusing for non native speaker. Where is the clause and effect? Where is the preposition? Wheres is the conjunction? Where is the verb? Hard to understand that excerpt text isnt it? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:34DA:2FD8:4B38:8B51 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want simple english, there's a simple english wiki.
 * As a native speaker, there's nothing overly complicated about this.
 * It's the order of events with the subject omitted as it is implied.
 * If you think it could be worded better, you're welcome to change it. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a confusing sentence to me (as a native English speaker).
 * Does this make it clearer?
 * "As he was going through security, Strong informed the court security officer that he needed to use the bathroom. Strong was told he had to first pass through security, at which point Strong defecated and was escorted to the restroom. About ten minutes later, he headed to the clerk's office." Grvy (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Badly written, seems to imply that he was correct
The phrasing of "...was told he had to pass through security, defecated, and was escorted to the restroom, in that order;" to me, seems to imply that the man in question was correct in his actions? If he was told that he had to defecate before reaching the toilet, then it would make perfect sense for him to have done it before he got there. Is it perhaps implying that he soiled himself after passing security, but before being brought to the bathroom? The phrasing here is, frankly, shit. There is surely a better way for this sentence to have been written? 51.37.184.155 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It could be worded more explicitly. The "in that order" bit does spell it out, but it does seem a little too colloquial. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Not clear what regulations
The appeal had to "consider if the violation of federal regulations occurring on a federal property could still stand if such regulations had not met posting requirements." What regulations is it referring to? Was the expectation that a notice should have been posted not to foul the restroom? Grvy (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)