This seems to rely on a distinction between positive and negative statements. I'm not sure whether that that distinction works everywhere? (e.g. is "x is less t

This seems to rely on a distinction between positive and negative statements. I'm not sure whether that that distinction works everywhere? (e.g. is "x is less than or equal to y" positive or negative? what about "x is less than y"? The negation of the first of these (under the assumption that x and y are comparable) is "y is greater than x". So, it seems that the two have to have opposite uh, .... I'm going to say "polarities"? But we can also say that "x is less than or equal to y" is the same as "either x is less than y, or x is equal to y", and, err if the conjunction or disjunction of two positive statements is positive, and similarly of two negative statements is a negative statement, ...? I feel like maybe something goes wrong here, but I'm not sure.) ___ If there is a domino, and I push it, and it falls over, I think most will agree that "It fell over because I pushed it.". If I don't push it, this article seems to say that "It didn't fall over because I didn't push it." is not a causal explanation. And, maybe that's right, but I don't think the "because 'if I had pushed it, it would have fallen down' is a counterfactual" is convincing reason for that. Because in the case where "I don't not push it" and it "doesn't stay up", shouldn't "It didn't stay up because I didn't not push it" be a valid causal explanation, being equivalent to "It fell down because I pushed it", yet, in this case, "if I hadn't pushed it, it wouldn't have fallen down" would be a true counterfactual? -- oh, this article is about advice for language use in interpersonal stuff (especially in a work environment), and maybe practical problem solving in general, not studying metaphyics-or-whatever of causation, ok.