Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Considering Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney for PR Chief Position [Update: Conflicting Reports]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, let's see. The word comes to us from Middle English: over + whelmen (to turn over, cover up)
Nope. Doesn't imply 90% or even 60%.
Let's look at the definition:
upset, overthrow
a : to cover over completely : submerge
b : to overcome by superior force or numbers
c : to overpower in thought or feeling
a : to cover over completely : submerge
b : to overcome by superior force or numbers
c : to overpower in thought or feeling
Looks like you're incorrect.
So what does covering over completely, or overcoming by superior force or numbers imply? 51%?
I'm fascinated that you're boggled by "overwhelm". Let's establish a baseline so I can assist you: what do YOU think it means?
In context of this conversation, a situation where the numbers vastly favor one side over the other.
There's different kinds of levels of everything. We can compartmentalize for the sake of the argument can't we?
Drop the word "vastly" and we agree. The superior side only has to have numbers great enough to defeat the weaker side.
Its not really helpful to describe someone who is actually right wing compared to other governments (as well as recent historical figures) around the world as "far left".
----------
If you read the definition fully it is quite clear that it doesn't apply to a 51% majority.
This is becoming chortle worthy. You have no idea why we're disputing the meaning of "overwhelming" do you?
51% of people in the room arguing a point doesn't completely drown out opposition, 90% does.
OK, that's clear. It isn't the definition of overwhelm, but it's an interesting story.
I completely agree, I also agree that it isn't good that a large minority of people think Obama is the worst president.
Overwhelming implies the extremity of an advantage. Something one step beyond a great advantage.
Hence "to cover completely".
wow so many dogmatically-retarded republican/libertarian twits using the up button on this thread.
Rather have my Dogmatic setting retarded than set to 11 the way it is with the Democrat/Liberal twits on this thread.
----------
You keep saying "implies" as if that means anything to anyone but you. The dictionary definition includes "upset" which doesn't bring to mind someone defeated by huge numbers. In fact, an upset usually occurs when a contender who appears to be more powerful is defeated by a supposedly less powerful opponent (cliche: David v Goliath).
I think we've covered this pretty thoroughly, and barring the dictionary suddenly adopting your version of the definition, I'll stick with the currently accepted one.
----------
Ah, so that's how you got mixed up. That's a different thread entirely where "overwhelm" was also used.
But I agree with your take on Obama's poor ratings.
But the current definition agrees with me! You're the one not reading it! As per your post:
a : to cover over completely : submerge
b : to overcome by superior force or numbers
c : to overpower in thought or feeling
There's nothing waffly about it. It's talking about extremes. Only C comes closest to your definition, and even it speaks in terms of complete and utter.
Please update your post to include the entire definition as I posted it. I won't tolerate contextomy but I'll assume you made an honest mistake.
There's your entire goddamn post. I didn't contextualize anything. I posted your A, B, and C verbatim which is entirely enough to counter your vapid, reality denying claim that overwhelm doesn't actually mean to overwhelm.
You're on the losing end of this argument, and all you have left is to obfuscation and obtuseness. You need to learn when to cut your losses, cuz continuing on will only serve to make you look stupid.
If he hires Jay Carney, I don't trust Tim Cook. That makes it easy.
And no, telling lies to keep product secrets is different than telling lies for 4 years to coverup the coverups of an extremely corrupt administration here in the US.
HUGE DIFFERENCE!
My my. Well if you look closely, you'll see that this version is different from what you posted previously because it includes "upset, overthrow".
As I mentioned to someone else, an upset...
Occurs in a competition, frequently in electoral politics or sports, when the party popularly expected to win (the favorite), is defeated by an underdog whom the majority expects to lose, defying the conventional wisdom. The underdog then becomes a giant-killer.
Hence, the definition of overwhelm does not mean to win by crushing strength (although it doesn't preclude such victories). It simply means to have enough power to defeat the opponent.
That would be really impressive if the record wasn't there for everyone to see. You tickle me.
Edit: It occurs to me that this argument is like bickering over the meaning of "decimate". The original meaning was to kill one in ten out of a unit; now it means to all but destroy utterly.
Maybe it's a personal failing. I don't know. But I just can't get past the fact that all we're doing is arguing minutiae over the definition of common words just because you don't want to look wrong.
The only thing I can say with 100% absolute fact is that this conversation got real dumb, real pointless, real fast
"Dumb? What? But I can talk just fine. We're conversing. So how is what I said dumb? Maybe you need to learn to read before you criticize someone's lack of speech. Oh, silly little man. I find your antics amusing".
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna beat my head against a wall, because I feel it'll be a more productive use of my time.
Say that neither of us wants to look wrong and you've got it. As I pointed out with the example of "decimate", it's possible to argue about the meaning and usage of words with neither party being wrong--depending on how loosely you define "wrong".
I prefer using words as they're defined, because that's the way they're meant to be used, so if someone misuses them, I think that's wrong. But as with slang (remember when the word "bad" meant "good"?) when enough people misuse a word, there's no shame in doing it too.
So I'm ending the argy-bargy on this because it's a time waster. Feel free to take the last word.
Obama wastes so much money, he's so awful. I only wish we had someone who spent conservatively, like Bush.