Okay, allow me to break down this passage for you.
My original comment:
"Yes, when I read this, I thought it seems as though perhaps OP is making a habit/pattern of cutting it too close (and let's face it 25 minutes late isn't even close), since this is at least the second time it's happened to her. Understandable, everyone wants to see as much as they can, but you can't keep expecting people to make exceptions for you, when you're breaking the rules. Rules are rules, no matter the excuse/reason."
1. Yes, when I read this, I thought it seems as though perhaps OP is making a habit/pattern of cutting it too close
We've already discussed the use of perhaps in this sentence, which means maybe, possibly. Thereby, making it quite clear I am
not assuming this is the case, merely suggesting it as a possibility.
2.
Understandable, everyone wants to see as much as they can
Just so we're clear here, the use of understandable interjects empathy on my part. It's a direct follow up to my previous sentence, which infers that if she is habitually cutting it too close, trying to see as much as she can, it is in fact, understandable. We all want to do as much as we can there! BUT....
3.
you can't keep expecting people to make exceptions for you, when you're breaking the rules.
Stating that she is expecting people to make exceptions, was not an assumption on my part, rather, it was made quite clear by the OP by her remarks. This is easily derived from the fact that even though she was late, by their own admitted fault, she argued/complained/made remarks that were an attempt to change their mind, three times:
-
"I said something like "Well we almost made it"
-
"I asked her if she was serious"
-
"I told her we were in line and that the other five families were let in"
Now, this next part is admittedly a generalization, but generally if someone is not expecting the CM to change their decision, they would not waste their time making the comments/arguments above. However, even if that generalization is indeed wrong by those examples, then let's review what the OP herself went on to say:
"Heck, we were 25 minutes past our Test Track time on this last trip and the CM said "close enough" to us and let us through"
Simple contextual reading allows us to know (not assume), that she is using the sentence to explain why she feels (expected) she should have been let in.
4.
Rules are rules, no matter the excuse/reason.
I would think the phrase rules are rules are pretty self-explanatory. Rules are rules. Period. There are time limits (rules) set in place with FP+. They apply to everyone at Disney, regardless of circumstances. Sometimes exceptions are made - which this OPs post goes to show why they shouldn't be. Exceptions create precedent, which then leads to expectation (see again her comment about the previous ride letting them on, despite the fact that they were late). When expectations are not met, hissy fits are thrown.
The second part does include an assumption, you're right. I'm busted. For I assumed that people were aware enough of common vocabulary to know that despite the fact that today they are often (incorrectly) used interchangeably,
excuse and
reason have two very different meanings. By using the word
reason specifically, I am giving her the benefit of the doubt of having a valid reason for the prior time she was late - thereby coming full circle, once again making it clear that I am
not assuming she is habitually cutting it too close, merely suggesting it as a possibility.
May I now assume that we are done on this topic of assumptions?
