Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is
disregarded as being in the category of things we call "a problem."
By this reasoning, if a person breaks into my home by picking the lock,
but does not actually break the lock in doing so, and proceeds to alarm
my family, tells bad jokes, has vile body odor, and sit on the
furniture, but does not immediately kill anyone or steal or break
anything, then the presence of this trespassor "is not, in itself,
indication of a problem."
I shall poll everyone I run across for the next 7 days, and shall submit
this situation to their scrutiny. I shall ask "Would you consider it a
problem to have a tresspassor hanging out in your home? Please answer
yes or no." I'll report the results when they are compiled. I
hypothesize that it would be considered indication of a problem.
Or is there some error in the analogy?
> In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you
> couldn't find it in your urine.
No argument here.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: