This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

whatever by airborneirish

You refuse to acknowledge there are three perspectives: Legal, academic, and practical. That's all I'm saying. You keep sticking to the legal perspective but we aren't at trial and I'm saying if I have to pick which to go with I pick the practical one: one that sets thresholds for probabilities that are contextual. This admittedly bleeds the concepts of expected value back into "likelihoods or aka pure probabilities" but certainly for me, a guy having a 1/3 chance of dying in the next 4.5 years is a likely outcome... Look at the probability of HRC victory of Trump. It's a very likely outcome given the roulette board.

You want to bet the farm on a 1/3 chance of going BK? I do not.