"Your post is just what I said it was. It was to counter another posters claim that it was a great recovery."
I don't care if someone uses the word 'great' to describe the recovery, or not. That's up to them. It's a personal view and I have no problem with opinions.
I merely pointed out the TRUE FACT (not denied by anyone) that --- from a statistical point of view, the recovery thus far has been BELOW THE AVERAGE for post WW II recoveries. (Doesn't mean if it keeps going that it won't some day pull the numbers up above the average....)
So, if you want to say that what I posted was a 'correction, or a 'challenge', I have no problem with that. I posted one undisputed FACT, nothing more.
"Since you have a problem with my response to your post, and you insist it had no purpose and was not an analysis, maybe you can explain why you even bothered to post what you did."
You are confused, Scott. I DID NOT say your posts 'had no purpose' or were 'not an analysis'.
What I said was that MY ORIGINAL POST was not an 'analysis'.
Then I asked you if you *wanted me* to post an 'analysis'....
(If you re-read the thread you can confirm that for yourself.)
----------------------------------------
(Now, can you see your way clear to apologize for the two LIES you posted, where you said I said something - which I did not! - or 'implied' something, which I also did not. That would go a long way to restoring my respect for you as an honest person.) |
