Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu
Frankly, you get weirdly, overly pedantic about parsing words sometimes
|
When you start arguing with me about how a sentence must or must not be parsed, it's a bit rich to point the finger at me for pedantry when I engage with you about it.
A new variant presents a potential danger,
Yes,
every new variant presents a potential danger. Ergo the potential in that sense is not news unless "the scientists" say it is more than just a surmise. The scientists in this case are saying the opposite. They seem to have bent over backwards to say it is
just a surmise.
Like a better example would be, we should warn/inform anyone who applies to Senator Packwood’s office. See there is potential danger there.
You are happier with that example, I'm guessing, because in that case
the danger has been established as real. There have been actual cases in which working for Packwood has been harmful. Which supports my point about "potential" referring to varying levels of reality/unreality, and that this matters.
Suppose it was widely known that some characteristic in senators, sporting a Fedora say, was correlated with sexual harrassment of staff. Further suppose that Senator J Doe is advertising for interns, and scientists discover that he wears a hat, but they haven't yet established the style:
Doc Brown tweets to their followers "Senator Joe has a hat. We need to monitor him closely because if it's a Fedora then he might turn out to be a Packwood". Is that
informing or
warning about Senator J Doe? Does it matter whether Doc Brown was tweeting to their colleagues or responding to questions from a journalist? I think it matters a lot.
Your quoted expert doesn’t say this represents no danger or that we shouldn’t be concerned.
This is true. Tom Peacock said it
might turn out not to be dangerous, and it was Francois Balloux said there was no reason to get overly concerned now.