Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
I think I do. I would characterize the results of our voting in this way. It was sufficient to accomplish the unfortunate end result ratifying CBA 2015.
sig·nif·i·cant
/siɡˈnifikənt/
adjective: significant
1.
sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
I would not characterize it as "significant" because by itself it is not. The result was significant to all of us, but that doesn't mean the vehicle of that result is as well. The outcome would have been the same if the majority had been a single pilot. It's a binary event. Yes or No.
If one desires to claim a majority is significant by virtue of the magnitude of one side of the result (the only way it can be "significant"), I suggest majority of 1 pilot or thousands might be viewed as significant. 7%? Not so much.
Really we are going to continue arguing over an insignificant part of my post you chose to isolate. Ok here is Webster’s:
1. : having meaning
especially : SUGGESTIVE
a significant glance
2a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT
a significant piece of legislation
also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount
a significant number of layoffs
producing significant profits
b : probably caused by something other than mere chance
statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease
The majority certainly had meaning. It certainly had influence or effect. Would you consider a 5% furlough a significant furlough? The vote was not chance.
XXXXXX announce the are going to undermine pilot unity and you XXXXX want to play dictionary.
And the margin of victory was 14%. If a Democrat won by that much the Washington Post would call it a landslide.