Within 6 months the fad of asking vendors and posting this kind of stuff will wear off and you wont see threads like this.... C9/5P debacle stirred the pot it will all settle out
Last edited:
potential and possible do not mean the same thing.Huh?
Huh?
That's what a risk is. That's what the word means. Doing something with a possibly negative outcome. What in the world are we talking about here? The action is the risk. The consequence is the consequence, whether positive, negative, or nil.
.
Huh? HUH? Are you trying to talk about degree of risk? Okay ... fine. But that has nothing to do with the discussion that was happening. Neither I, nor anyone else I was debating, were discussing degrees of risk. It was a semantics discussion. Please, if you'd like to engage me in debate, debate against positions I've actually taken, not imaginary ones.
I was starting to have that suspicion.He knows this. You are getting trolled, bro.
Put down juice vendors on a public forum and ask them for money to support your needs.
yWhat on Earth are you talking about? You're just making up definitions now. That is not what potential means. I have to be honest ... this may be the single strangest interaction I've ever had on ECF. I'm half convinced you're joking.
Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
potential and possible do not mean the same thing.
possible means it could happen with the right circumstances.
potential means it's not likely to happen if at all.
it just acknowledges that nothing can obtain zero risk.
nothing has zero risk however,some risk I so low
as to be effectively zero in the real world.
mike
y
potential risk is not real risk. they are totally separate concepts.they mean
different things.
i am half convinced your just being contrary.
regards
mike
Of course you would actually read the lab results Rossum. So many others would just read the headlines, which is what Vendor B would be counting on.Unless Lab B's quantitative results come in well above Lab A's limit of detection, there's no issue at all. That's why I said the limit of detection should be included in the published results -- and I've never seen test results that didn't include them.
well there you go.A little assistance from something called a dictionary. They are also also available online. I expect that at least one person on this thread will argue with the dictionary also.
Definition of POTENTIAL
existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>
Definition of POSSIBLE
being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization <a possible but difficult task>
well there you go.
potential. existing in possibility.not the real world.
its not tangible.
capable of development into actuality. not actuality.
possible, your definition speaks for itself.
thank you for sharing.
regards
mike
That's why I said the limit of detection should be included in the published results -- and I've never seen test results that didn't include them.
So you don't believe product labeling if food? The ingredients are fake?You can bet the government will tax it, the FDA will regulate it, and it wont be any safer then it is now. Its all about the money. Nobody really cares about it once it generates tax dollars. They just gave us more time to get more people to switch to vaping and they will tax it. Whether you smoke or vape its about the money.
Agree. Look at the Halo lab reports. It's pure mumbo jumbo.Yeah, I keep seeing results that are below detection limit, but since they are all from different laboratories, and they don't specify what the limit of detection IS, it's been driving me nuts.
Well its not mumbo jumbo it just is not CLEAR to a lay person.Agree. Look at the Halo lab reports. It's pure mumbo jumbo.