> So instead of all this complaining of me being a pedant you could have replied to this question with just a "yes" and far fewer ink would have been spilled.
While we're being pedantic, no ink was spilled on this conversation. Let's not invent a definition of ink that includes pixels on a screen.
The pedantry is the problem. That you were wrong even in your pedantry is entirely unsurprising because people who are being pedantic almost invariably are—people who actually are experts on a topic generally recognize it to be complicated enough that it's not worth trying to be perfectly precise in casual speech.
So in my first comment I didn't feel the need to waste time address the merits of your claims—that would only validate the invalid approach to discourse—but when you doubled down (twice!) I decided to humor you and sure enough, you were wrong.
> If we just make up whatever "rural" means to you personally then it'll be hard to actually use real statistics to understand our populations and cities.
Agreed. So let's not invent a definition of rural that says that small towns and villages "easily get classified as urban or suburban" and then try to use that as a hammer to tell people they're wrong about what type of environment they live in. :)
Edit: you added a whole paragraph after I replied, but it doesn't change anything. The environment you describe would not be called a small town or a village by anyone, even those who apparently misuse the word "rural" in conversation with you.
I'm sorry, where was I wrong? Where did I ever actually accuse any particular person of living in one place or the other? And in the end you do live in an urban area by your acknowledgement. I've only been asking for people to ensure they're really using the right terms.
> Agreed. So let's not invent a definition of rural that says that small towns and villages "easily get classified as urban or suburban"
Yes, let's not invent one. We'll just encourage the improper usage.
> The environment you describe would not be called a small town or a village by anyone
A surprising percentage of people living in areas like that do. I personally know some.
While we're being pedantic, no ink was spilled on this conversation. Let's not invent a definition of ink that includes pixels on a screen.
The pedantry is the problem. That you were wrong even in your pedantry is entirely unsurprising because people who are being pedantic almost invariably are—people who actually are experts on a topic generally recognize it to be complicated enough that it's not worth trying to be perfectly precise in casual speech.
So in my first comment I didn't feel the need to waste time address the merits of your claims—that would only validate the invalid approach to discourse—but when you doubled down (twice!) I decided to humor you and sure enough, you were wrong.
> If we just make up whatever "rural" means to you personally then it'll be hard to actually use real statistics to understand our populations and cities.
Agreed. So let's not invent a definition of rural that says that small towns and villages "easily get classified as urban or suburban" and then try to use that as a hammer to tell people they're wrong about what type of environment they live in. :)
Edit: you added a whole paragraph after I replied, but it doesn't change anything. The environment you describe would not be called a small town or a village by anyone, even those who apparently misuse the word "rural" in conversation with you.