That's false. Even though the OP explains what you mean, the thread title still is an example of equivocation.
No, it's not.
You need to study your tropes and fallacies.
The headline is not ambiguous, it's opaque. Obviously, the Occupy protestors have not inherited billions of dollars and become the wealthiest 1% of Americans. So the meaning can't be literal, but there's no way to figure out from the headline alone what the term "1%" actually does refer to.
When you read the OP, the meaning is clearly stated, so there's still no ambiguity.
Here are a couple of examples of actual equivocation from the current news....
Romney put up a campaign vid in which Obama is heard saying "If we talk about the economy we are going to lose" (or something close to that). Trouble is, that was Obama quoting a McCain staffer.
That's equivocation, because it gives the unmistakable impression that it's a direct quote from Obama, not Obama quoting someone else.
Romney also ridiculed Solyndra by saying they "had robots that whistled Disney songs... I'm not kidding".
No, he wasn't kidding, but he gave the impression that they had something like Disney World's animatronic figures hanging out around the office for entertainment.
In fact, the robots were industrial robots, and the tunes they played served as alarms to the human workers when something needed seeing to.
That's equivocation, making people think one thing when the reality is another by using ambiguous language (e.g. "robot" and "whistle") and leaving out information that would lead people to the correct conclusion while stressing points that lead them to the wrong conclusion.
I haven't done that.
You're using an unconventional meaning. This is equivocation. At the very least, it makes your thread title misleading. Beyond that it gives your thread an extra "zing" that would be absent if you didn't use this. If what you're saying isn't that they themselves are somehow "the 1%", you lose the added point of accusing them of some sort of hypocrisy--of having become the very thing they're protesting.
Using a word in a non-conventional sense is not, in fact, equivocation. That should be clear by now.
The first time I heard someone say "Man, he was Yahweh on the field today", it was certainly an unconventional use of "Yahweh" but I knew exactly what he meant and never thought he believed the guy was literally God.
I hadn't seen those other threads you had read, so I can understand if you saw the header and thought "Here's another one of those", but that's what
you're bringing to the table, so you can't accuse me of intending it.
And once you saw what I did mean, then it surely would make no sense to accuse me of equivocation.
What happened was that you made a wrong assumption from the header which was corrected when you read the OP.
That's all.
