Hacker News Reader

Your argument is spurious at best. It's akin to saying the "big one" didn't hit San Francisco in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, so therefore it won't hit in what's remaining of 2012.

Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

View on HN

No, it's more akin to somebody arguing that the "big one" will hit in what's remaining of 2012, and somebody else responding to that argument by noting that the same conditions used in the argument prevailed in past years when the "big one" did not hit.

In other words, it's not an argument that this can't happen, merely an argument that the original argument is baseless.

Yep, you're right and I'm wrong! I misinterpreted the comment I replied to!

Major props to you for being so gracious about it!

No, it's like that at all.

It'like responding to some guy saying that it will hit "in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011", to "shut up, stop playing the Oracle, since you suck at it, and just inform us WHEN it hits".

I know. As stated elsewhere, I misread your comment.

Oh, read it now. My bad!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com