NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5105744" data-attributes="member: 4937">Good luck with that.  Very few people try to use words as precisely as I do, and I think you're going to find that ordinary language is simply to vague to convey unambigious meaning.No, it isn't.  That's why I brought up the term.  'Too big to fail' has completely altered its meaning sense coming into common parlance.When it first started showing up in 2006, the meaning of 'Too big to fail' was that the very largest monetary funds had so much capital that even if the economy entered a recession they would be able to absorb any loses without becoming insolvent.  They were as a result of there massive holdings 'too big to fail'.  By late 2008 though, people began using the term 'too big to fail' in an entirely new way.  Once it became clear that in fact Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overextended with high risk loans, policy makers began using the term 'too big to fail' to mean 'to big to be allowed to fail', meaning that they were failing and the consequences of there failure was too devestating to be contemplated.  These meanings are of course mutually exclusive and contridictory, yet there was a point in early 2008 were the two different meanings were being used interchangably and it was only possible through context to understand how the term was being used and what it meant to the speaker. And again, no there isn't.   And actually, that's not true.  A commonly accepted definition which is completely uncontrivertable has been provided in this thread.  What you mean is that that the term 'videogamey' doesn't have a commonly accepted meaning, which is quite another matter.  And that's not at all unusual either (and for that matter, neither is the reverse).</blockquote>

Verification