RLFANS.COM - The World's Most Popular Rugby League Website

Quote: bewareshadows "I have to say Roy, the assumption here is that Saints first statements were inaccurate.

The point being made against your assumption is that they were not inaccurate.

for example

I will be in work tomorrow. This is an accurate statement.
However, in the morning I find that my car does not start, or I crash the car. Then I will be late or not make work at all.

It does not make the original statement inaccurate. It means the orginal statement did not account for all possibilities.

There is a difference. An inaccurate statement would suggest either incompetance or misleading tendancies.
Where as the others are arguing it was not inaccurate, it was accurate at the time.

These odds are Saints best calculation at this time of Walsh coming back on the 2nd Week in April and are subject to change as are all things and by tomorrow the odds will have shortened or lengthened dependant on many factors some stated here and some not. etc etc etc

When we are asking any question about the future. Any answer is open to chance and risk, in which case you have to assume it is beholdant on the user of that information to take into account that other possibilities exist.

As you can see, in the end the answer 2nd week of April is an off the cuff comment and does not give a full answer as a full answer would require a full legal document every time a simple question is asked.'"

I feel like I'm in a bizarre alternative universe where the meaning of the same words differs between you and I.

My line is that I have doubts about Walsh's return. Those doubts are precisely because of the unknowables to which you refer above. The club may, in all good faith, predict a return in mid-April, but then encounter an unforeseen issue. I entirely accept this. That's why I have doubts. Doubt, in this case, means a lack of certainty. Hence, all my original comment ever meant was that I am becoming increasingly concerned/doubtful of Walsh's imminent return to a Saints shirt. The fact that previous predictions have turned out to be wrong - however well-intentioned - merely confirms that a doubtful approach is a reasonable approach. I have never said he is definitely not going to return. Nor have I said that the club is lying. I have merely expressed doubt.

On the other hand, Mr Giraffe is absolutely certain that because the club has said Walsh will return in April week 2, then that will happen. In his view, my doubt is completely misplaced because the club has spoken, and therefore there can be no doubt. This is a fact as inevitable as the force of gravity. Anyone who expresses doubt - as I did - is therefore an idiot.

So I agree that there can be no certainty. And I agree that there are unforeseen possibilities. And thus I agree that while the club has said Walsh should be back very soon, they cannot guarantee that any more this time than they could last time they made a prediction which did not come to pass. I agree. It's not me who is denying this eminently reasonable position. It's the other guy who denies even the slightest possibility that Walsh's return might be delayed, with a faith in the club's statement bordering on the religious. What's even more bizarre is that, even after you have at great length set out just why there can be no certainty regarding comebacks, the guy who has posted that such a return is absolutely certain, and anybody who disagrees is an idiot, is applauding the very post which proves his position to be indefensible !

This is a very weird experience. We can argue some more semantics if you like, but let me put it to you like this :

1) Is there a possibility that Walsh may not return in week 2 April, for any reason at all, forseen or unforseen ?
2) Is Walsh's return in week 2 April a cast-iron certainty which will definitely happen no matter what ?

1) is my position
2) is Mr Giraffe's position

According to your last post, it's me you agree with, not Mr Giraffe.