4 ms·

Give me a break. Is he making closer to $150k a month, or $5k a month? Both statements cannot be "equally true" coming from a human pen.

tshtf 16y ago
Technically speaking, both can equally be true. Every month, he makes more than $5000 At the moment he’s making more than $5000 a day If one makes more than $5000 a day, clearly that person will make more than $5000 a month.
- mquander 16y ago
  We aren't speaking technically. It's a story.
bmelton 16y ago
They very well can be equally true. $5,000 a day is 'more than' $5k a month, no matter how you read it. While I agree that it's a potentially confusing statement, I just don't see anything factually incorrect about it. For what it's worth, my interpretation is that 'on average' or perhaps 'since he started', he's made generally over $5,000 in a month, but lately he's doing far better than that. Perhaps I'm the one reading too much into it here, but I strongly disagree that it is in any way misleading or semantically problematic.
- mquander 16y ago
  No person says "more than $5,000" to imply that the value may be any amount greater than $5,000, with equal probability. Saying "more than $5,000 a month" if you actually mean "$150,000 a month" may as well be the dictionary definition of misleading, and totally defeats the purpose of giving a number at all. The obvious explanation is that one or the other statement is a typo, and it would be nice to know which, since it's a big difference. It's possible that one means "since he started", or whatever, but again, it would be nice if the author said so.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    I suppose if you disregard the rest of my statement, then you are justified in your comments, but again, based on my reading, it makes sense note the 'lately' in the second part of the statement? To me, that's a qualifier that during the current timeline, he's doing exceptionally, or abnormally well. Without contacting the author, the subject of the story, or someone in the know, we just have to keep peeing in each other's corn flakes, without knowing the true answer. Regardless, I just don't see justification for taking such issue with the statement. Edit: I was missing a 'you' in the first sentence.
    - mquander 16y ago
      Well, if you got that interpretation out of the sentences in the article, you're a more adventurous reader than me.
      - bmelton 16y ago
        I suppose. I don't think so, but if the votes matter at all, I suppose the majority agrees with you, though I'm more than a little surprised by them, since I believe I am factually correct. So it goes.

tshtf 16y ago

Technically speaking, both can equally be true. Every month, he makes more than $5000 At the moment he’s making more than $5000 a day If one makes more than $5000 a day, clearly that person will make more than $5000 a month.

mquander 16y ago
We aren't speaking technically. It's a story.

bmelton 16y ago

They very well can be equally true. $5,000 a day is 'more than' $5k a month, no matter how you read it. While I agree that it's a potentially confusing statement, I just don't see anything factually incorrect about it. For what it's worth, my interpretation is that 'on average' or perhaps 'since he started', he's made generally over $5,000 in a month, but lately he's doing far better than that. Perhaps I'm the one reading too much into it here, but I strongly disagree that it is in any way misleading or semantically problematic.

mquander 16y ago
No person says "more than $5,000" to imply that the value may be any amount greater than $5,000, with equal probability. Saying "more than $5,000 a month" if you actually mean "$150,000 a month" may as well be the dictionary definition of misleading, and totally defeats the purpose of giving a number at all. The obvious explanation is that one or the other statement is a typo, and it would be nice to know which, since it's a big difference. It's possible that one means "since he started", or whatever, but again, it would be nice if the author said so.
- bmelton 16y ago
  I suppose if you disregard the rest of my statement, then you are justified in your comments, but again, based on my reading, it makes sense note the 'lately' in the second part of the statement? To me, that's a qualifier that during the current timeline, he's doing exceptionally, or abnormally well. Without contacting the author, the subject of the story, or someone in the know, we just have to keep peeing in each other's corn flakes, without knowing the true answer. Regardless, I just don't see justification for taking such issue with the statement. Edit: I was missing a 'you' in the first sentence.
  - mquander 16y ago
    Well, if you got that interpretation out of the sentences in the article, you're a more adventurous reader than me.
    - bmelton 16y ago
      I suppose. I don't think so, but if the votes matter at all, I suppose the majority agrees with you, though I'm more than a little surprised by them, since I believe I am factually correct. So it goes.