Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's like saying, "The bank teller didn't give me the money--the bank did!"
No, it isn't because you are insisting that the money is coming from the Norwegian government when it is coming from a private Swedish foundation - two separate entities not employer-employee.
You're proven right because your analogy is wrong?
I never said the money was coming from the Norwegian government. I said it was awarded by the Norwegian government.
I'm proven right because the best you can come up with hinges on an accident of the analogy and not the main thing that you continually muddle.You're proven right because your analogy is wrong?
But it isn't awarded by the Norwegian government - it is awarded by an independent committee appointed by the government. That none of the money comes from the government is the salient point.
You chose the analogies. The whole point of an analogy is to illustrate your point; yours didn't. An "accident"? Did you get them from a random analogy generator?
That the government committee chooses who gets the money is the salient point.
Forgive me. Accident can mean "incidental detail." See definition 8 in Wiktionary.
No, it isn't. First off, it isn't a government committee, but a committee chosen by the government. What's the difference? The authority to give the money comes from the foundation, not from the government.
Well, sure, it can but the entirety of the analogy is not an "incidental detail". There was nothing about either analogy that was apt except the incidental reference to money.The semantics alone invalidates your analogy, since it counts a good thing as somehow equivalent to a bad thing.
