>I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out.
This was clearly an error. GP is right to call it out, but not right to characterize it as nuts. It's obvious what you meant.
This was clearly an error. GP is right to call it out, but not right to characterize it as nuts. It's obvious what you meant.
You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”.
Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks.
It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.
Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.
Normal in the sense of "you can model a distribution of human behavioral processes or outcomes" that encompasses, say, 95% of humans in a given culture or geography is very much a thing you can do. And I'd go as far as to say a large chunk of the mental bandwidth of the average person is running those simulation models just to operate in a multi-human-agent world.
(If you want to say we observe bimodal or other multi-peaked distributions in practices rather than "normal" ones, I will strongly agree, but that usually isn't the objection when people say "normal is a myth")
A behavior may be typical, or common maybe, but I think "normal" evokes certain connotations when describing human behavior.