Your comment stated that college doesn't add much to a person's employability. (If you had wanted to be less obfuscatory, you could simply have said "a [HS] education is already adequate qualification for many jobs; college doesn't add much").
That was your claim. (I don't think your claim is correct of many OECD countries' colleges, but it was the claim you made.)
You then replied to J-Kuhn to say that they had misunderstood your comment by (mis)paraphrasing it as "Students attend college to become qualified to work."
Not really. The comment of yours that started the lack of clarity is this double-negative, and 0/2 of us who responded to you here found it useful:
> Most graduates aren't really qualified to work anywhere that they couldn't have worked before going to college in the first place.
The double-negative could be read both ways: "Most HS grads aren't really qualified to work anywhere and college doesn't add much" or "a [HS] education is already adequate qualification for many jobs; college doesn't add much". So we apply Occam's razor and since the [U-5] unemployment rate for [US] HS grads is << 50%, conclude you meant the former. But the comment was still needlessly obfuscation. Even if we assume which country and education system you were talking about.
Conversely, it's a little weird how I ignored your lack of clarity and didn't point it out so starkly, then you reduce the interaction to this ping-pong. I don't intend to overflow the stack on this.
I know that I used a double negative, I meant to do that. Not everything is meant to be written and read the exact same way. That was the particular style of sentence I chose so you can just deal with that and you don't need to keep pointing it out.
Stop being abusive. Your original double-negative comment lacks clarity, it can be read in two completely opposite senses. It would better for you simply to have clarified it (and next time be clearer in the first place). People here brought that to your attention but all you do is attack them. That's on you not us. If your stylistic choices make your writing incomprehensible, then don't use them. That's all.
Put it like this: it was an interesting discussion before that, and looks like people expected you would simply clarify your meaning (like most of us do when we're being unclear), so the discussion could proceed. Not go on all-out attack.
Your comment stated that college doesn't add much to a person's employability. (If you had wanted to be less obfuscatory, you could simply have said "a [HS] education is already adequate qualification for many jobs; college doesn't add much").
That was your claim. (I don't think your claim is correct of many OECD countries' colleges, but it was the claim you made.)
You then replied to J-Kuhn to say that they had misunderstood your comment by (mis)paraphrasing it as "Students attend college to become qualified to work."