Unironically, I applaud your confidence and surety. They are generally positive attributes that more people need.
Granting that many people view the anonymity of online forums as a free-for-all to say whatever they want with impunity. Assuming that everyone does so, and that you know their motivations and intentions, is more a disservice to you than to your understanding and interactions with other people on those forums. If you think or believe that someone is being uncivil, call them out, but be prepared to explain why you think so if they ask: it will make both of you better.
The limited exposure we have to each other is barely enough to have meaningful discussions about individual topics, let alone correctly interpret and understand underlying motivations and intentions. We (the global we, not you and I specifically) often barely scratch the surface without the full scope of nuance and depth needed to truly understand another’s position even when one is trying to do so over multiple posts. The more complex of a topic, the more unlikely it is that the participants will even be talking about the same facet at the same time without careful consideration.
I do own what I said and what I meant. But that is all I own. I do not own what other people think about my statements, or what they think I mean. If there is a question about what I mean, ask for clarification to ensure that what you think I mean is what I actually mean. That is exactly the same as what I afford other people. Hence why many of my posts are often filled with questions, to afford them a chance to clarify what I think they are saying.
When taken individually, the first sentence has nothing to do with math. But analyzing it individually when it is the leading sentence in a paragraph is taking it out of context. Referencing, whether generally or specifically, where something can be found, should be taught, or other association is quite common in literary analysis. Logical and quantitative analysis of means, modes, averages, distributions, deviations, and related materials is math that has been taught in high school math classes for decades.
Although I was trying to start from a lower baseline, I will point out that Teishoku simply skipped five or six steps to the same end point: in any large population, there will always be some who get it, some who don’t, and the ‘average’ generally doesn’t move anywhere because then they would no longer be average. Applied to WoW professions, the average player will not make much money with them other than as a supplier of raw materials because supply outstrips demand. As soon as a player invests enough time to understand their server market, and acts on that understanding, they are now an above average WoW profession player. Or if they misread their server market and their move fails, they are a below average WoW profession player until they correct their interpretation and actions or return to simply a supplier.
And as both Teishoku and Kaldnei pointed out, the OP in the other post is far from an ‘average’ WoW player being a Mythic raider. That is also why I asked you to define what you meant by average. To help set a common frame of reference for future discussion. That is still available if you wish to continue this discussion.