Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:01:53 -0400
On 1 Aug 2010, at 22:46, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> The only thing I think we should be careful is just throwing out harms and
> not explaining how VI or CO would cause these.
while I agree in principle with this, I would note that if one feels that Vi/CO
could exacerbate the harm or make it more likely, that is worth explaining as
yes i take note that some in the group believe we can have no knowledge of the
likelihood of an even in the future, however, if an individual in the group
believes they have an idea on likelihood and especially relative likelihood, it
might be worth taking the chance and mentioning it in any case.