>language would be impossible Actually, as you're seeing, defining words based on how you feel makes language more difficult than just understanding what the a

>language would be impossible Actually, as you're seeing, defining words based on how you feel makes language more difficult than just understanding what the article is about. The Economist is using the word "recession" to mean what economists define it as: two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. So what's the point of commenting on the article and then rejecting the article's assumption? If someone wrote an article on compilers, would you jump in to say that Microsoft Word is a compiler in your heart? The accepted definition of the word "recession" is not "how pfortuny feels about his financial prospects whatever the GDP says."