Timeline for How do you refer to someone who has access to an abundance of resources?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30 at 19:52 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | Even after all this time, can you please clarify at least the exposition? | |
| Sep 15 at 23:48 | answer | added | Sandra | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 9, 2018 at 21:52 | answer | added | Ke Pi | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 14:32 | vote | accept | waldyrious | ||
| Aug 16, 2016 at 14:32 | answer | added | waldyrious | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 19, 2014 at 12:07 | comment | added | waldyrious | Here are some other words near the target that ocurred to me afterwards, in case they help someone: "reach", "clout" and "network" (though the latter two only refer to social/political potential). | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 21:06 | answer | added | JessC | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 18:41 | answer | added | user3742662 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 26, 2014 at 23:37 | history | edited | waldyrious | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarify
|
| May 26, 2014 at 23:16 | answer | added | user77395 | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 11:35 | comment | added | waldyrious | Jim and octern: that's precisely the issue. I'd like to refer to someone who can tap (has access to) certain resources, not someone who owns them. "influential", though not perfect (I'd prefer something neutral about the person's character), seems closer to this meaning than "rich", "wealthy", "resourceful", "prodigal", etc. But I guess that, while "resources" in that sentence suggests that the person owns them, it could get close to the intended meaning with proper context. | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 6:22 | comment | added | octern | Why not "their skills, availability, and resources"? | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 2:12 | answer | added | Randy | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 4, 2012 at 0:53 | vote | accept | waldyrious | ||
| Aug 16, 2016 at 14:32 | |||||
| Mar 4, 2012 at 0:53 | history | edited | waldyrious | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
further clarification
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:49 | answer | added | James Waldby - jwpat7 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:41 | comment | added | Jim |
If you would like to make it clearer then I would remove the but doesn't necessarily make good use of them clause. And if that is your intention then rich seems to be the right word
|
|
| S Mar 3, 2012 at 22:33 | history | suggested | Christi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarifying the question.
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:32 | answer | added | octern | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:26 | answer | added | Christi | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:23 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 3, 2012 at 22:33 | |||||
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:14 | comment | added | waldyrious | @Jim, exactly, this is why I needed something different :) I edited the question, see if that makes it clearer. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:13 | history | edited | waldyrious | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
attempt to clarify what is being requested
|
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:10 | comment | added | Jim | @Waldir: I tend to use resourceful when the intention is to point out that the person was able to make use of resources at hand that most others would overlook; i.e., that most others would not even consider to be resources at all. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 22:05 | comment | added | waldyrious | @Jim and Wayfaring Stranger: your questions/comments are precisely along the lines that "resourceful" is defined: they refer to the use made of the resources, not to the fact that these resources are abundant (which is what I'm aiming at). Please edit my question if you feel you can make this clearer. | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 21:57 | comment | added | Wayfaring Stranger | Ineffectual is along the right lines here, but it usually takes a modifier rather than standing alone: "Yeltsin proved to be ineffectual as leader of post-Soviet Russia." | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 21:35 | comment | added | Jim | It's the "doesn't necessarily make good use of them" that is the key here. But do you intend that this person knows they have access but squanders them, or that they don't even realize that they have access, or that they are naive in their use of those resources? | |
| Mar 3, 2012 at 21:26 | history | asked | waldyrious | CC BY-SA 3.0 |