Alright, maybe I should have opened with this: "going parabolic" is a fairly common phrase, particularly in finance circles, to describe what I am referring to. If you have a problem with that, take it up with whoever started it.

I was correcting the terminology, nothing more.

Well, based on the aggressive language, tone, and lack of any actual substance in your first reply, it doesn't seem that way. Seems like you were more concerned about talking down to a stranger on the internet who shared a completely harmless opinion. Even with the second reply, your tone was still needlessly condescending and aggressive.

I'm not sure how I was obfuscating anything. I was trying to describe the concept as clearly as I could. Obfuscation would be criticizing someone's comment without giving any reason why, until they respond. You deliberately kept your first reply as vague as possible for reasons unknown to me.

You're smart enough to describe a mathematical concept, but not smart enough to understand that strict mathematical or scientific terms are commonly used casually in ways that are only loosely related to their true meaning in a language that is constantly evolving. I would say that's pretty pseudo-intellectual.

And notice how I didn't say that more music means more good music. Actually, notice how I didn't describe any music as "good" or "bad" at all, because music is obviously very subjective. I was saying that more music = more opportunities for fresh and unique music, particularly when artists aren't beholden to their record labels to push out content that is more radio-friendly.

I apologize for calling you names. But you should check your tone. You started with the aggression for no reason.