|
Re: Moving update |
Careful with the wording and meaning. I still think there is a great deal of misunderstanding on this issue amongst us here. Personally, I don't think, and I don't think anyone else here thinks earthquakes can't be predicted. Only that so far no one has managed to do so reliably, provably. I feel this misunderstanding has been the cause of a few unnecessary arguments. If I am wrong, and I am after all interpreting others words, and there is indeed someone who posts here who is of the opinion that it is impossible to predict quakes, please correct me. As a slight tangent, it has been my observation of many years of participating in and observing arguments online, that a goodly chunk of them are caused by the two sides using different meanings and definitions of the words they use. Incoherent communication has been the root of so many arguments, it's part of why I don't discuss much any more - too much resistance to agree on the meanings of things. Brian Follow Ups: ● Re: Moving update - EQF 13:33:30 - 3/7/2013 (100429) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Roger Hunter 14:27:01 - 3/7/2013 (100430) (0) ● meaning - Island Chris 07:29:25 - 3/7/2013 (100426) (0) ● Re: Moving update - Roger Hunter 20:32:42 - 3/6/2013 (100420) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Roger Hunter 20:34:54 - 3/6/2013 (100421) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Skywise 20:38:12 - 3/6/2013 (100422) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Roger Hunter 21:17:09 - 3/6/2013 (100423) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Skywise 22:19:38 - 3/6/2013 (100424) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Roger Hunter 10:06:10 - 3/7/2013 (100427) (1) ● Re: Moving update - Skywise 16:43:58 - 3/7/2013 (100431) (0) |
|