[lazide]

So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here.

I thought it was serious, just less serious than those that actually killed people, because it does show system issues at Boeing related to actually doing safe changes to their planes.

Which is a scary operational problem, but at least not a major plane design problem.

Which will kill someone (or a lot of someones!) eventually.

And got called a psychopath for it, apparently? Which doesn’t seem very polite.

[dylan604]

> So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here.

Yes, you've been very confused in this entire thread. No, I did not say what you think I've said. In fact, I stated the exact opposite. You seem to have an agenda and are attempting to read that into this entire thread.

[lazide]

Your prior comment literally says ‘ any number > 0 when counting deaths because of a company's malfeasance, incompetence, or any other word to describe it is serious’. You say that same type of statement multiple times, using >0 every time. Instead of, perhaps, >=.

There were zero fatalities in this incident. I personally thought it was serious, but less serious than incidents which have fatalities.

Are we agreeing? Who is confused here? Am I a psychopath?