| 1 |
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:16:31 +0100 Peter Humphrey |
| 2 |
<peter@××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sunday 12 September 2010 00:15:34 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > But since you're not convinced, now it would be nice, for my own |
| 7 |
> > education, and perhaps someone else's, that you elaborated a bit |
| 8 |
> > more. What exactly do you find non convincing in that usage of the |
| 9 |
> > adjective? How would you express the concept better? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I did say I wasn't getting at you in particular, but what I dislike is |
| 12 |
> being bombarded by the broadcast media with "potential this" and |
| 13 |
> "possible that", when only a few years ago no-one would have dreamed of |
| 14 |
> putting the extra word in. We even heard of someone being charged with |
| 15 |
> an alleged crime recently, which is plain nonsense. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I see. I haven't had a TV set for about 12 years now, so I'm probably |
| 18 |
somewhat less exposed to that, although I think I see where you're coming |
| 19 |
from. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> A risk is a risk, no matter how indirect it starts out. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Of course, but it may affect different people to different degrees, or may |
| 24 |
not even affect some of them. That's what I meant. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
A rose is a rose is a rose, but it can be pink, red, white...it still |
| 27 |
remains a rose. But sometimes the attribute can make a difference. |
Archives