(Untitled)

[lucifrix]

I really love the verbal construction of "not [x]" as opposed to "[opposite of X]," as in, for instance, "His concerns are not invalid" as opposed to "His concerns are valid." They mean the same thing on the surface, but the connotation is different(and the former sounds more elegant IMO). I can't explain HOW the connotation differs, but it's

Comments

We have failed to reject the assertation...

[orb2069]

Which is sorta the same thing, the way they say it in stat class.

If he walks up to somebody drinking a glass of tap water and slaps it out of their hands, yelling "There's CHLORINE in that water!"

If we had some test gear and maybe a copy of the MSDS, we could determine:

• If there's no chlorine in the water, of course, then the claim is just invalid.
  
• If there IS some chlorine in the water, and the MSDS says chlorine is harmful, then his claim is not invalid.
  
• After doing some long and short term analysis of populations that drink chlorinated water against others of equal status that do not, we find that drinking water with this level of chlorination is harmful - and so harmful that it warrants not drinking THIS GLASS, RIGHT NOW, then his claim could be considered valid unless new information arises to contradict it.

I always thought of the 'not invalid' as being roughly equivalent to 'It passes a sniff test, but I'm not sure.'

[lucindalunacy]

Hello long dormant poster who lives so, so close to me.

Happy Birthday!