Crabman wrote, after I had agreed:
Crabman> >>That's not efficiency, that's just speed.
RF > I agree that's a better word for it, in the context of my WARNING.
That should have been the end of it after I had explained why I
had used the word "efficient".
> > It turned out their "efficiency" (more than just being "speedy") can
> > be turned to an ADVANTAGE
> > Efficiency:
> > 1 : the quality or degree of being efficient
> > 2 a : efficient operation b (1) : effective operation as measured by a
> > comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money)
> >
> > They were efficient in the following sense:
> >
> > 1. Cost of service $29 for a double-entry visa is less than others
> > I've seen
> > 2. They performed the expected FOUR DAYS for a regular service
> > in less than ONE DAY (received one day; the consulate
> > operation> processed and mail the return the next day) -- the
> > normal
> > service fee for the same-day service is MUCH higher.
> > 3. The day of receipt was Saturday; the day of issuance of visa was
> > Sunday. So, apparently both the visa service and the consulate
> > count weekend days as "working days".
> >
> > Thus, in terms of definition b (1) the operation
> > was "efficient", but item (2) was what turned out to contribute to the
> > too-early issuance of my visa.
Crabman persisted in his pedantic pedantry,
> All my life I have understood, and every dictionary I have says
> essentially "effective without waste". So if there was an error, they
> were not efficient or someone else made the mistake.
> Clay
Perhaps you've spent all your life inside your crab shell to be able
think or comprehend written text in a discussion.
-- Dr. Bob. (aka Reef Fish).
|