Mokk said:
I did not enter this conversation on the basis of economics, as i have very little understanding of it. I entered this conversation due to an innacurate statement about common sense, something i'm very familiar with. You're getting all worked up over nothing, hence the emo label. I had been pondering this uncharacteristic demeanor since the iraq thread. You're the one who started in with personal insults calling me high and mighty.
When on the defensive it's surely easy to read rational comments as demeaning, especially if you are indeed mistaken in what you're saying. You read it that way, i didn't write it that way, again. Cry some more.
You do realize you're bitching at me for taking a page out of the Rones playbook, right? It's 3 simple steps, let me break it down for you:
1.Read an innacurate statement.
2.Comment to the innaccuracy and bolster said comment with facts and sources.
3.Get pissed and moaned at by people who are just in the argument for themselves.
Shall i do a search to list how many times you've done this? I have a funny feeling it'll rival my State of the Union post in length.
I did not get into a pissing match about the definition of the word until he refused to see the obvious point i was making about common sense. Where the hell have you been?
The shallow comment was directed at how you approach this argument, you're here for no other purposes than your own. I find it shallow, cry more.
The irony here is succulent. I can appreciate the frustration of your position as it is in this current line of conversation, i've been there more than a few times myself. I must say it's not easy being you in the metaphorical sense.
That being said i have better things to do with my time that i care much more about that repeating myself, you've got that on lock anyway i'm sure the boards will be covered on the side of redundancy while i'm off doing other things. Keep up the good work.
I'm going to explain this to you one more time, and just once. Read it until you understand.
Often, is...
Many times; frequently.
No where in the definition of often, does it say that it's something that occurs over half the time. In fact, when something occurs more than half the time, there's a saying.
"More often than not."
If often meant that it happened over half the time, then the saying would read...
It happens more than half of the time than not.
This makes, no sense.
Once we can drill into the head that while often may mean more than 50% of the time, it doesn't have to be. If it did, the definition would say it did.
Now, in a context, whatever I take as the prerequisite for often has meaning. For example, if 1 in 100 people explode for no reason in my town, I would describe that as often. If 1 in 100 videos were returned late to the blockbuster I like to go to, I'd describe that as not often.
Therefore the context of a situation is important.
Let's say I work at a store, and 30% of the people who come into my store are black.
I might say, accurately, then...
Black people visit my store often.
I might also say, people who aren't black visit my store often.
I could not however say, black people don't visit my store often. Not in the same context that I said they DO visit my store often. Those conflict. But just because those black customers visit my store, doesn't mean that my 70% white customers don't visit my store often as well.
This is maybe the 3rd time I've explained it to you. I'm not going to explain it again. You claim to be an adult, you should understand this concept easily. I'm not patient like Rones. I get frusterated and I swear at people for incompetetence.
