I wasn't playing a trick. There are times when using "literally" in the figurative sense actually makes sense, even though I don't approve. But this is not one. So I thought maybe the person actually meant it in the non-figurative sense.

If you want evidence that I'm an honest person, look at my comment history. I don't go around tricking people and trying to win arguments by deception. In fact, I frequently call people out for being nasty in various ways, much like you are doing here.

I can understand why you think I'm trying to trick people and I was worried that would happen. That's why I talked about historical and quasi-examples of people buying careers. I didn't want you to think or feel that I was playing a trick.

Please realize language has ambiguities and is not a program that is compiled. Deliberately nitpicking the meaning of words from someone who is generously offering to clarify a statement for you looks like a sign of bad faith. Use a charitable interpretation and figure out the idea he/she was getting at.

Clearly, money/power/fame/beauty can "buy" things even if there is no currency changing hands. That is the point the previous poster was making. Wealth is influence, and influence gets you favors, like a foot into a career.

I disagree. aikah made a statement, which Javert wanted more detail on. jackvalentine claimed to explain what the other poster had said, but it didn't actually match up. He was probably right about what was meant, but maybe he wasn't and there's no real reason for the rest of us to assume it's an accurate clarification of what aikah meant.

If it had been the original poster making the clarification then moaning about 'literally' would have been pedantic, but it was not, and so therefore it was justified - it was making the point that the interpretation given by jackvalentine did not actually clarify the statement as made, and that Javert had assumed something else, more interesting was being said. At that point the conversation depressingly quickly devolves into name calling, threats and patronisation.

> Clearly, money/power/fame/beauty can "buy" things even if there is no currency changing hands. That is the point the previous poster was making.

According to you. Javert was actually using a charitable interpretation when he assumed that the original maker of the statement meant what they had said.

As far as I can tell this entire subthread consists of people uncharitably failing to spot that Javert was not in fact trying to score points, (or believes that language is a program to be compiled, or would benefit from a list of topics to meditate on about the evolution of language) and was merely asking for more detail, and getting upset that he is skeptical their trivial 'explanations' actually explain what was originally meant.

It's mainly a lot of people freaking out about their hot button topics without actually spending any brain power on understanding what the other person is saying and why.

Yes, parts of this conversation reflect poor judgement on my part. I wasn't thinking too hard about it at the time.

> You asked for a good faith reply

He did, but not from you, since you don't know what Aikah actually meant. Regardless, your freakout is unseemly.