On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:16:31 +0100 Peter Humphrey <pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 12 September 2010 00:15:34 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: > > > But since you're not convinced, now it would be nice, for my own > > education, and perhaps someone else's, that you elaborated a bit > > more. What exactly do you find non convincing in that usage of the > > adjective? How would you express the concept better? > > I did say I wasn't getting at you in particular, but what I dislike is > being bombarded by the broadcast media with "potential this" and > "possible that", when only a few years ago no-one would have dreamed of > putting the extra word in. We even heard of someone being charged with > an alleged crime recently, which is plain nonsense. I see. I haven't had a TV set for about 12 years now, so I'm probably somewhat less exposed to that, although I think I see where you're coming from. > A risk is a risk, no matter how indirect it starts out. Of course, but it may affect different people to different degrees, or may not even affect some of them. That's what I meant. A rose is a rose is a rose, but it can be pink, red, white...it still remains a rose. But sometimes the attribute can make a difference.
