Quote:
Originally Posted by plib
"Unfortunately whoever taught you at that much earlier age failed to impart that irony, like fly fishing, usually requires a light touch. Never mind, also a bit like fly fishing, you can improve with practice".
|
Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't need more practice fly fishing - I have been pulling rainbows and browns out of various lakes and inland waterways since I was about twelve. Success (there's that word again) requires a deft touch, not a light touch.
"I'm sorry that you do not appear to be able to parse what is in front of you. The wording is very specific, intentionally so. It is not semantics to read what is actually written."
No, but it is semantics (and obstinacy) when you deny that the wealthiest one percent of people in any country are successful. A few inherit their wealth - most don't. Even to inherit wealth and build on it rather than lose it requires a degree of success and a lot of right decisions - something you deny.
But, if it will make you happy - you seem to be getting a little peeved - I will allow that in your world, an extremely wealthy person is not successful. Even though both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries define of success as "a state of prosperity or fame" or "the attainment of fame, wealth, or social status. The US Oxford defines it as "a person or thing that achieves desired aims or attains prosperity".
So there we have it. I am wrong, most financial writers are wrong, most biographers are wrong, most of the world's highest ranked dictionaries are wrong. Any person who regards wealthy people as successful is wrong.
But you are right.
Ok, got that. In your world success equates to failure.
(For some reason I just had a flash of Alice through the Looking Glass. I wonder what prompted that?)