propaganja

Thank God some people still know what's up.

I agree the claim requires more evidence and it would be foolish to just take it at face value, but even if my intuition told me it was intrinsically safe I wouldn't place any degree of trust in my own logical conclusions, or discount someone else's warnings, however spurious.

The burden of proof should never be on the accuser when it comes to safety, in my opinion, or anything else of public concern. And the standard of proof should be higher to show that everything's ok than to show that it's not. At least in an ideal world.

I mean, it sounds like you're saying, "I don't know how it can be dangerous, therefore it's not dangerous."

Both perspectives are defensible. The question could be interpreted generally on its own, or in the context of OP's new-user experience. Personally I would lean towards the latter, but that makes an assumption that the] look

God I hate camping

Quite notable, that Bernard.

It doesn't matter how common the written error is, because the ambiguity is omnipresent in speech and we sort it out every day of our lives, so it will always be easy as fuck.

FYI, both of you are overacting. It's weird to react to the correction so seriously, but equally weird for you to get so offended by the error. Both of you be better.

You're currently in violation of the oldest, most sacred rule of secret-sharing, and recommend you amend that per your obligation to the social contract, as a matter of principle.

"Wait! How did you beat me when I hit every note perfectly? I've never seen anyone use their whammy bar the entire time—just what in the hell was that?"

"Nao, that's what I call music."