Technically invalid phrases

[Mordendravid]

That's funny, it's exactly his point. Instead of debating against him you would be agreeing with his disagreement of the OP, perhaps you better re-read.

 

I can't see where the OP misused those words? The first use on this thread was in the post made by Jeda, however, if it's a cross-thread quote of the OP or if my comments were elaborating the point that Jeda was trying to make, then apologies to Jeda, I agree with him/her (though quote tags might have helped if this is the case!).

 

My comments still stand against whomever posted the initial definition, and it would be shame to waste the duck analogy :)

[elucin8er]

That's funny, it's exactly his point. Instead of debating against him you would be agreeing with his disagreement of the OP, perhaps you better re-read.

 

I can't see where the OP misused those words? The first use on this thread was in the post made by Jeda, however, if it's a cross-thread quote of the OP or if my comments were elaborating the point that Jeda was trying to make, then apologies to Jeda, I agree with him/her (though quote tags might have helped if this is the case!).

 

My comments still stand against whomever posted the initial definition, and it would be shame to waste the duck analogy :)

 

It's not a mis-use, its an acceptance of different meanings. Over time words grow, you'd be foolish to assume the initial definition is now the only definition.

[Mordendravid]

That's funny, it's exactly his point. Instead of debating against him you would be agreeing with his disagreement of the OP, perhaps you better re-read.

 

I can't see where the OP misused those words? The first use on this thread was in the post made by Jeda, however, if it's a cross-thread quote of the OP or if my comments were elaborating the point that Jeda was trying to make, then apologies to Jeda, I agree with him/her (though quote tags might have helped if this is the case!).

 

My comments still stand against whomever posted the initial definition, and it would be shame to waste the duck analogy :)

 

It's not a mis-use, its an acceptance of different meanings. Over time words grow, you'd be foolish to assume the initial definition is now the only definition.

 

Fully agree with what you're saying Elucin8r, and if that's the point that Jeda was trying to get across, then applying your sentence above and stating that the cases he/she was using were examples would have made that point very well. Posting random words with a single definition very much left the post open to interpretation!

[jords]

I use poor for my level when talking about all skills in general. Each skills is worth (x or -x) x being makes money -x being loses money. I tell them to look at my skills work out the total wealth gained from the x - the wealth spent from the -x before I tell them the actual cash figure, atm it's 143M cash they normally say I'm rich but I'm not so sure. I suppose I have spent over 110M.

I have no idea based on skills whether or not I'm poor/avarage/rich for my level.