Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barrysghost" data-source="post: 418246" data-attributes="member: 5376">So, by your clarification, if I had a broken arm last year, it would be accurate to say my arm is "perpetually" broken?  Or is it more accurate to say my arm is "susceptible" (I'm a walking dictionary, I don't need to look anything up, thanks) to breaking in the future?  Because someone has been injured in the past , it is acceptable hyperbole to say they are always injured?  That doesn't make sense.  Hey, my dog pooped yesterday, so he must be "perpetually" pooping.  Because something has happened once or twice, the exaggeration of "always" is just not accurate, even for hyperbole.  You say that "perpetually" is an exaggeration, but even exaggerations need a basis in fact.  Otherwise, it is just a wacky statement that is untrue.  By your definition, anyone who has been injured in the past 3 years can be classified as "perpetually" injured.  BTW, to say that Stafford is "prone to significant injury" isn't a fact, its an opinion.  "Stafford has been significantly injured in past seasons" is a fact.  I don't care about how big a fan you say you are.  Just so we're clear.</blockquote>

Total: 904 (members: 2, guests: 902)