You didn&#x27;t even cite the entire sentence... Feel free to elaborate as to what is false as I don&#x27;t see it, unlike your earlier statements.<p>And no, it&#x27;s not facetious at all. It&#x27;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&#x27;s nothing false about this.<p>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&#x27;ll find mpesa is much less significant than your statement would lead people to assume. That&#x27;s why I called your statement misleading and called you out on making the statement, despite the fact your corrected statement is 100% truthful.<p>I won&#x27;t require you to agree with any of my points, that&#x27;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&#x27;ve done by adding context to your empty statements, in my second post. If anything, I&#x27;m taking this much more seriously than you, facetiousness then is quite an ironic accusation coming from you.