Ummm, no...
For me, it was genuinely confusing,
because it was, as I said, somewhat
ass-backwards in its presentation.
Mainly: it had absolutely no qualifiers -
just numbers 1-2-3-4-5. It was eventually
explained to Janszoon and I what was meant.
OK, got it now.
...but the idea that it was somehow
"blatantly obvious" is one of those things
that shows up a lot here: everything is
clear for all because that particular person
thinks it's clear and when shown that it isn't
necessarily clear, people go off emphatically
and don't even acknowledge that it may not
have been clear.
"Yes, I'm sorry, I should've made that clearer."
So, according to the logic of a few here who
think it's obvious, then I will understand that
the next time someone makes a list of, for
example, 5 bands that suck, that the band that
sucks the most will be at the bottom of the list,
because, "5 being the greatest value...Saying 5
means it's the greatest amount of suck" or "the
higher the number, the more you think it sucks."
Anyway, now I know what some on MB will mean
when they make their lists. Best things? They'l be
at the bottom. Worst things? Also at the bottom.
Got it. (it just would've been nice to have this cleared up at the start).
|
Linear Mode
