Surely we can't take arguments of the form "X hasn't happened, our preventative measures against X work!" seriously without *at least* weighing the counterfactual. To do otherwise would invite superstition and error. Do you *have reason* to think the TAG policy effective and/or net good? On what evidence? Regards On 2 Jul 2014 07:11, "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: > > > > This rule is protecting against a problem that hasn't happened, and > > that does not seem very likely to happen. > > > > Maybe that means it's working as intended? > > -Eric >
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 07:55:19 UTC