No it isn't. You said you meant something like different in a good way, which is not what that definition says.
unparalleled is, from my experience, usually used in a good way. In fact, this is hinted at in its definition: unequaled or unmatched; peerless; unprecedented.
To what degree the way I used unique is right or wrong is a relative question. It depends on all our various conceptions of the words in the definition of unique, and the words in the definitions of those words, and so on. Language is not precise or clear. I think words have some flexibility, and as long as we are willing to elaborate on what we mean (provide clarifications) it is ok.
like right now:
I was meaning there was no need to amend the post to clarify it in the way you were trying to, because it was already clear in that way.
In what I wrote to tell you that (my last post) I was paraphrasing myself at the end - good was a byword for vibrant, sincere, interesting, unique, etc.
I think why you have continued to respond to me (and why you did so in the first place), is because you maybe feel what I wrote applies to you (and that's why you are so focused on refuting it - trying to finding loopholes in what I said, trying to argue that it doesn't make sense, etc). The manner in which you have responded to me makes me think this. This is just my cursory analysis. But I am wondering what you think. You avoided answering these sorts of questions when I asked the first time, and I didn't press you. But I do not think our current exchange is getting anywhere (if it is for you, tell me).
I did not not mean what I wrote to be mean, really. I only said it because theyankinlondon has made similar statements to that one (that show insensitivity to others) which make me sad for him. Sad for him because I think that he has the potential to be a kinder, more thoughtful person. And sad in general that people - ostensibly smart and bright people - say things such things.