[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?