I just had a discussion on LinkedIn where the author of the post and I disagreed. He said I was wrong because my claim as to his position were mistaken. While nothing new, this time the disagreement was over his words versus his meaning.
Note: I removed his name from any post.
The message
He wrote in his initial post (along with an image of paper money from Iraq):
“I look at some #money I acquired from Iraq 2003 Invasion and this money with Saddam’s face has been long obsolete, which makes it a future collectible for sure, but it also reminds me of how volatile money is in regards to value based on who is behind it, who controls it, and who it is associated with.
I think #cryptocurrencies create such #decentralization and #equality that it will forever change how we look at money and who we associate it with. Let’s #defacemoney #future #change #society”
In replying I said, “…how can you say paper money is volatile when Cryptocurrency just lost $1 trillion in value this year?”
His reply, “You should really reread what I wrote. Note: I never said crypto was not volatile. I did not say one was more volatile than the other. I also did not say paper money is volatile. I said money is volatile. But paper money is volatile. Hint: #recession2022 – the point I made is that crypto is in early stages of being developed and formalized and old money is on its way out. Crypto lost money because people have not fully adopted it and built it into society. Weigh things out and crypto has way more potential, that is what I am saying”
The conversation continues
My answer, “Sorry, that’s not what you wrote, that may have been what you thought.
In your run-on sentence (which means it was written as one thought):
“I look at some #money I acquired from Iraq 2003 Invasion and this money with Saddam’s face has been long obsolete, which makes it a future collectible for sure, but it also reminds me of how volatile money is in regards to value based on who is behind it, who controls it, and who it is associated with.”
You talk about paper money (Saddam’s face) and that the paper bill will be a collectable (you are probably right), then you talk about “how volatile money is”, still talking about paper money.
Your next sentence (paragraph) starts talking the benefits of Crypto.
So paper bad, Crypto great. Paper volatile, Crypto decentralized and egalitarian. (I don’t agree but that wasn’t my messages point).”
His final refute, “Wayne Spivak I know what I wrote and what my thoughts are, lol – my thoughts are not wrong, b/c they are my opinions – I think you are looking too far into it my man e.g. my thoughts and my grammar (it’s social media not a document I am sending for the pulitzer prize, relax) I do not see any points you are making that are causing me to really think differently here e.g. the point of a debate/convo – have a nice day and I am done on this debate/convo as I think we have exhausted this part of my post”
Epilogue
He blocked my reply, which was along these lines.
“Grammar is paramount, whether you are writing a post on LinkedIn or an answer to a customer/vendor. Words have meaning and improper formatting of those words (grammar) can change the meanings of those words.
Laissez faire grammar will end up biting you in the proverbial rear when a message/email/letter you wrote is subpoenaed by an attorney. What you wrote may not be what you meant, but your message will tell the reader what you wrote.”
