3 ms·
Your argument is spurious at best. It's akin to saying the "big one" didn't hit San Francisco in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, so th
by kintamanimatt 14y ago
Your argument is spurious at best. It's akin to saying the "big one" didn't hit San Francisco in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, so therefore it won't hit in what's remaining of 2012.
Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.
- mikeash 14y agoNo, it's more akin to somebody arguing that the "big one" will hit in what's remaining of 2012, and somebody else responding to that argument by noting that the same conditions used in the argument prevailed in past years when the "big one" did not hit. In other words, it's not an argument that this can't happen, merely an argument that the original argument is baseless.
- kintamanimatt 14y agoYep, you're right and I'm wrong! I misinterpreted the comment I replied to!
- mikeash 14y agoMajor props to you for being so gracious about it!
- batista 14y agoNo, it's like that at all. It'like responding to some guy saying that it will hit "in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011", to "shut up, stop playing the Oracle, since you suck at it, and just inform us WHEN it hits".
- kintamanimatt 14y agoI know. As stated elsewhere, I misread your comment.
- batista 14y agoOh, read it now. My bad!