Thats fair enough MagiK but my point was that that wasn't your original defence, or if it was it was phrased so differently I can't make out the similarity. Originally you stated that it happened a lot and the odds of it causing harm were astronomical. I then pointed out that neither of those are very comforting, and that neither of them stop the act in question from being a problem. Then you come out with the fract that its not preventable (which, don't get me wrong, I am prepared to believe).
My point is that your first defence is not the same as the one you're coming out with now, and that the first defence wasn't a defence at all really. I like this one though, I'm prepared to accept it just as long as we realise its not quite the same thing as what you said first off.
__________________
[img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe
|