Oh come on. You cannot seriously have pulled that out of what I said. The difference between your version of "saving" and mine is scale. You think it either has to be a lot of money or farther down the line.
In my view a poor person that clips coupons and buys sale things in order to better feed their children or themselves, or to pay a bill, or just to go out to eat every so often is saving. To you this doesn't count because it's not big enough. That only people with middle to upper class options has the luxury of saving money. That's the arrogance.
Further, the science does not back up your claim that "...owning more stuff which does not increase personal happiness." The article you link simply says that experiences are more valuable than material goods, not that material goods don't increase happiness.
You assume that someone taking advantage of sales in a grocery store or similar is going to spend the same amount or more, which I don't think you can support. You also assume that these purchases, if they happen, are more or less frivolous. You certainly cannot support that.
If I have to feed myself or my family on a fixed budget and I do so for less money than I otherwise would have I have saved money regardless of what purpose I put that surplus to. A bill, a new large purchase (car, furniture, tv, etc,) or put it in the bank. It is saved because by spending less I have given myself the ability to buy or use something that I wouldn't have been able to otherwise. Attempting to draw a distinction with a time horizon or size of purchase just isn't useful.