Quote:
Originally Posted by worzel
You keep saying that despite it being explained many times that you are misinterpreting their use of the word "conservative".
|
Perhaps I wasn't very clear above: I think that "conservative" in the context of mBH stopping distances within the Earth means that G&M were attempting to err on the side of
overestimating stopping lengths in order to avoid inadvertently
underestimating mBH stopping lengths. As is proper when following the Precautionary Principle. That's because the danger of underestimating stopping lengths (that is, assuming stable CR produced mBH's are trapped by Earth's gravity when in reality they never are) would give a false sense of security.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by worzel
Rubbish.
|
Could you please at least
try to be polite.
Quote:
|
The "or" was there to emphasis that by "conservative" they meant "worst case" Dropping the "or" makes it sound like there were several options for the "worst case" scenario of which they chose the most conservative ones (then using the opposite sense of "conservative" to that which they originally meant.).
|
I'm sorry, I don't understand how there can be many "worst case" assumptions. "Worst" usually implies
the most worse. And why do you suppose G&M enclosed ""worst case"" in scare quotes? I am forced to wonder what
that's supposed to mean. Is a "worst case" assumption the same as a worst case assumption? Can we at least agree that the sentence from the footnote in question is not the most clearly written sentence ever written in the English language? It's not that important of an issue. We should more interested in whether G&M actually used worst case assumptions than whether a poorly worded sentence says they did or not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by worzel
There's no point even thinking about anything else you claim when you continue to defend such an obvious and trivial twisting of their words to suit your claims.
|
I'm sorry if you feel that way,
worzel.