View Single Post
  #1362 (permalink)  
Old 24-September-2008, 05:50 PM
Warren Platts Warren Platts is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim View Post
Warren, we seem to have another "language" problem. You keep saying "problematic" wrt the G&M paper.

You even emphasized the qualifier you now ignore... potentially... and simply state that things are "problematic" when assessing the dangers.

That's similar to saying a woman is "potentially pregnant" and then dropping the "potentially" in subsequent discussion. There is a difference.
That's a valid point, Jim. I don't want to convey that I think the LHC will for sure lead to a global catastrophe. It probably won't, I'm the first to admit. Your pregnancy example is a good analogy. If a birth control method had a 10% failure rate, that wouldn't be problematic in itself. It would only be potentially problematic.

Last edited by Warren Platts; 29-September-2008 at 04:17 PM.. Reason: replace "birth control example" with "pregancy example" as Jim did not specifically mention birth control
Reply With Quote