You seem to have lost sight of the original context of our discussion. The thread began with the assertion that 'Adult children is the vernacular', which I questioned. My point throughout has been consistent: age descriptors for relatives are typically only used when relevant to the context.
You've contradicted yourself. Initially, you implied that not specifying age was 'arrogant'. Now you state, 'When it is germane to the topic at hand I will mention the age of my offspring.' This aligns precisely with my original argument.
Your mischaracterisation of my position as 'there are either adults or children, nothing else' is a straw man argument. I never made such a claim. My stance has always been about the contextual use of age descriptors.
Regarding the post history: I noticed your comment on the same page, which aligned with our discussion. It wasn't 'trawling', but a relevant observation.
Your verbose response, filled with personal attacks and misrepresentations, doesn't change the fact that you've effectively conceded my point: age descriptors are used when contextually relevant. This was my argument from the start, which you initially contested but now seem to agree with.
If you'd like to have a genuine discussion about linguistic practices, I'm open to it. But that would require acknowledging the actual points being made, rather than constructing elaborate misinterpretations.
You've contradicted yourself. Initially, you implied that not specifying age was 'arrogant'. Now you state, 'When it is germane to the topic at hand I will mention the age of my offspring.' This aligns precisely with my original argument.
Your mischaracterisation of my position as 'there are either adults or children, nothing else' is a straw man argument. I never made such a claim. My stance has always been about the contextual use of age descriptors.
Regarding the post history: I noticed your comment on the same page, which aligned with our discussion. It wasn't 'trawling', but a relevant observation.
Your verbose response, filled with personal attacks and misrepresentations, doesn't change the fact that you've effectively conceded my point: age descriptors are used when contextually relevant. This was my argument from the start, which you initially contested but now seem to agree with.
If you'd like to have a genuine discussion about linguistic practices, I'm open to it. But that would require acknowledging the actual points being made, rather than constructing elaborate misinterpretations.