And yet somecrazyhow I was able to crack the code in my very first post of this thread.
And yet, your thread title is still incorrect.
And yet somecrazyhow I was able to crack the code in my very first post of this thread.
That's by intent. Because you're an idiot.It didn’t mislead me.
It’s not my thread title and it’s not incorrect. In your mind it’s incorrect because in your mind you inserted a word that doesn’t exist into the thread title.And yet, your thread title is still incorrect.
It is incorrectIt’s not my thread title and it’s not incorrect.
LOL...it says...and I quote...No. JP’s interpretation of the headline is wrong. He assumed it referred to the annual inflation rate. The headline did not specify the measure of inflation, but the very first line in the article did. Just because JP inferred it doesn’t mean the headline implied it.
Everyone who subconsciously inserted the word ‘rate’ into the headline has pointed out that they were duped. I, on the other hand, saw 20% and immediately figured he was probably referring to cumulative inflation. And damned if I wasn’t right yet again.It is incorrect
Everyone has pointed that out for you.
But you insist on looking like an idiot (again)