Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp
In that it's impossible to have this talk "as a nation" in the sense you're referring to it. There's no "national" conversation going on...there's multiple localized conversations of individuals all across the nation. This isn't a team all in one locker room actively talking to each other. This isn't even a President giving a statement broadcast across the nation in real time on every major network. This is independent collumnists, news commentators, internet blogs, people at water coolers, etc having a conversation about the issue.
False. A team conversation doesn't have to have all of the teammates in one room. The key factors are 1. That it involves the members of the team and 2. it is a conversation that
relates to the team in some way.
The conversation being had by the nation is about what effects, if any, this particular issue will
have on the nation. This whole thread is indicative of the fact that the conversation is about that.
This goes back to my issue with you claiming I'm reading your words wrong when in reality what you TYPED and what you seemingly meant to say do not jive up.
they jive up, you just keep trying to make them mean things that they do not.
Having a team meetings about an issue suggests you are having meetings as a team about issues.
Speaking of moving the goalposts, when did "conversation/discussion" get changed to "meetings"? Conversation and discussion are synonymous and fully interchangeable, but meeting is
not fully interchangeable, as it does imply that the participants are all physically present in some way during a set time period.
I made no claims about gathering the people together for the discussion. The only reason you might have decided to make this shift is to support your erroneous claim form ealrlier about the team being all in teh same room for a team discussion.
That's moving the goalposts.
Being a topic of national conversation is suggesting that the topic is one being talked about on a national level.
Being a national topic of conversation is suggesting that a topic that raises to national concerns is being talked about.
Exactly backwards. This is just a matter of how adjectives work.
A national topic of conversation clearly indicates, by virtue of word order, that the
topic is what is being shared as the nation,
not the conversation. The answer to "what is national" is "the topic". The
conversation about said topic, however, is
not necessarily shared by the nation (it can be, but it doesn't have to be). There is no uniformity of conversation and the discussion being had does
not necessarily relate to the nation in
any way. It can be something totally inconsequential
Example: The Superbowl. It is a national topic of conversation the day after it happens. The
topic is shared as a nation, but the
conversation is not.
With a topic of national conversation, it is the conversion that is described by the adjective "national".
That is what is being shared by the nation. It relates to the nation in some way, which is why the conversation is shared. It may be shared in a separate fashion, like how a team conversation about a proposed rule change about concussions, for example, may not occur in a formal team meeting, but individually and in smaller groups by the players and coaches, or how a
league discussion on concussions can take place in multiple different locker-rooms in multiple team meetings, but it is
still a shared conversation on the issue.
Example: The Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl became a topic of national discussion, specifically about how such things affect the nation as a whole.
I chose that example because I, personally, did
not see it as a big deal. My
opinion of such a thing airing on live TV during a sporting event was of the "It's not that big of a deal
to me" variety. But
my opinion of the event does
not have any bearing on the import of the event on the nation. It was definitely a big deal
because it was a big deal to so many people. It might not have affected
me in any way, personally, but it
did affect a significant portion of the population of the nation. It inspired a national conversation about the issue. It had a real effect, even if I personally didn't think it
should have had an effect.
For those who are saying "this is being made into a big deal when it is not really a big deal" and "who cares" they are sharing their feelings about how it affects
them personally. But how it affects them
personally has no relevancy on the topic and nation as a whole. It
has an effect on a
significant portion of the population, as evidenced by the reaction to it. There
is a conversation being shared by the nation about how we as a nation react to homosexuals
because of that effect.
You seem to be MEANING the latter
I
do mean the latter, but I also realize that you are applying the adjective incorrectly.
But the WORDS you said and the order you put them in suggested that it only mattered that the nation was talking about it, not that the topic itself was worthy of "national" regard.
False. Your improper understanding of what nouns adjectives apply to is what caused you to reach that erroneous conclusion.