You didn't even cite the entire sentence... Feel free to elaborate as to what is false as I don't see it, unlike your earlier statements.
And no, it's not facetious at all. It's a theoretical example of how one can make completely honest and truthful statements, that are misleading and insignificant, an example you can obviously agree with because it is indeed a silly and insignificant statement, yet completely truthful that our bookkeeping system could indeed register the change of ownership of a $1 bill by processing trillions of money transfer orders in a given day, generating a volume of transactions that exceeds GDP. There's nothing false about this.
The statements by you that express mpesa transaction volume as a percentage of gdp are as meaningless without further data. And if you do add the further data, as I have in my post (conveniently ignored by you), you'll find mpesa is much less significant than your statement would lead people to assume. That's why I called your statement misleading and called you out on making the statement, despite the fact your corrected statement is 100% truthful.
I won't require you to agree with any of my points, that's up to you. But you can hardly call me facetious when I called you out on an error in your statement which you corrected, in my first post, and did the homework you should've done by adding context to your empty statements, in my second post. If anything, I'm taking this much more seriously than you, facetiousness then is quite an ironic accusation coming from you.
And no, it's not facetious at all. It's a theoretical example of how one can make completely honest and truthful statements, that are misleading and insignificant, an example you can obviously agree with because it is indeed a silly and insignificant statement, yet completely truthful that our bookkeeping system could indeed register the change of ownership of a $1 bill by processing trillions of money transfer orders in a given day, generating a volume of transactions that exceeds GDP. There's nothing false about this.
The statements by you that express mpesa transaction volume as a percentage of gdp are as meaningless without further data. And if you do add the further data, as I have in my post (conveniently ignored by you), you'll find mpesa is much less significant than your statement would lead people to assume. That's why I called your statement misleading and called you out on making the statement, despite the fact your corrected statement is 100% truthful.
I won't require you to agree with any of my points, that's up to you. But you can hardly call me facetious when I called you out on an error in your statement which you corrected, in my first post, and did the homework you should've done by adding context to your empty statements, in my second post. If anything, I'm taking this much more seriously than you, facetiousness then is quite an ironic accusation coming from you.