>No, I’m not even remotely trying to say that. Does anyone even understand the concept of a hyperbole?
Yes. I always found that when you had to use a hyperbole the basic amount wasn’t enough to actually merit concern, so you had to exaggerate. Isn’t that the point of them, to make things seem worse than they are?
>You again are entirely missing the point of what I even said, focusing on the wrong thing (this is why I’m not interested in even looking at what you write much anymore, since you convolute the point that’s being made). Most of my comments have to do with public relations, management, policies and rewarding consumers. Get your mind off the numbers. Making calculations and comparisons on numbers is hardly the point I was making and is not going to change a thing about what I said.
If it had to do with PR, then why was your post using such insane numbers? It seemed like you focused on the numbers a lot, and you could have easily made your point about PR without using numbers, as Phoenix has done. So why were the numbers mentioned at all, besides to confuse me or make it seem more outrageous (the second one, of course, being what I criticized you for). And yes, it does change what you said. If things are unfair for an 800% increase, a small inrease in price isn’t necessarily unfair.
>On the flip side, if they are doing it just to stay afloat and the hike is relatively low, then it’s more understandable.
So the numbers are important if it is small, but not when you use your hyperbola? Hmm. Anyway, you further went on to say it was bad management, which Phoenix disproved by saying they had been planning the increase.
>Sometimes I think people don’t even understand the point of a hypothetical illustrations and hyperboles anymore. If I said ‘it took forever to make a game’ would you argue with me that I was wrong and explain to me how taking forever was impossible? Come on people, I feel like I’m in an episode of Family guy sometimes… O.o
No, but if you tried to argue that it was absurd to give Kongai a release date 6 months from now by saying how many fans we would lose if it was released 8 years from now, I would argue against it. See? You even hyperbole’d the extent to which I would argue your hyperboles.
>I changed my mind – I’m a big proponent of communication, and if you guys can air out some of your differences in a civilized manner, then great, go for it.
Thank you. Also, it gave me a chance to actually argue against aC’s post “while locked.” ;-)
>Mils – perhaps I over-reacted a little, but I don’t think by much. This is not a topic I’m passionate about, this is something I thought was stupid and wanted to share. I’m not mad that you’re arguing against me, I’m mad about your condescending attitude. I honestly didn’t understand how you weren’t seeing my point. I was not trying to be an ass, it was an honest statement. Yours on the other hand had no purpose but to demean, and following your claim about me being short-sighted it pissed me off.
First off: OK, fair enough about the not seeing your point thing. Secondly: I was only reaping what I beleived you had sowed. I thought, at the time, you had tried to demean me, so I was angry and posted against you. Third, the short sighted comment was because you admitted you were looking at the short term increase instead of the long term decrease and the effects against your city.
>Additionally, mils, they were going to raise the cost of water as a way of forcing people to conserve, not because of any revenue problems (at least they didn’t mention them when they were talking about the rate increase).
In the article, it stated that they had 800 million dollars to pay off in 10 years. I am pretty sure a 20% cut in revenue would hurt their payment plan, so it must have been on their minds. Or else they are even more short sighted than your theoretical consumers. ;-)