Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9596792" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't see how it's unnecessary. You want to be prioritized. You accept that that prioritization will not put you first. Okay. What, then, would be insufficient prioritization? You accept that the upper limit isn't going to be 100%. What is the acceptable lower limit? Because you and others clearly wouldn't accept 0%. That would be, again to use Max's phrase, &quot;completely disregarded&quot;. Hence, there's got to be some range where the lower bound is more than zero and the upper bound is less than 100. What are those bounds? It's extremely important to actually have a notion of what approximate range would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Without that, every single discussion bogs down into &quot;well it isn't good ENOUGH&quot; and then we're just right back to my original question, because never good enough is exactly what &quot;we must be prioritized first&quot; cashes out as.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9596792, member: 6790260"] I don't see how it's unnecessary. You want to be prioritized. You accept that that prioritization will not put you first. Okay. What, then, would be insufficient prioritization? You accept that the upper limit isn't going to be 100%. What is the acceptable [I]lower[/I] limit? Because you and others clearly wouldn't accept 0%. That would be, again to use Max's phrase, "completely disregarded". Hence, there's got to be some range where the lower bound is more than zero and the upper bound is less than 100. What are those bounds? It's [I]extremely[/I] important to actually have a notion of what approximate range would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Without that, every single discussion bogs down into "well it isn't good ENOUGH" and then we're just right back to my original question, because [I]never good enough[/I] is exactly what "we must be prioritized first" cashes out as. [/QUOTE]

Verification