um no. you were calling things crapshoots that you also described being predictable in that they were unlikely to happen. you later said you were using crapshoot to mean UNpredictable and not "highly unlikely" because highly unlikely was, as you pointed out, predictable.
I don't know that I described anything as predictable. And, interestingly enough, if I said I was using crapshoot to mean not "highly unlikely" because highly unlikely was predictable, then "unlikely" still works, because "unlikely" is less predictable than "highly unlikely".
I think I was more likely using "highly unlikely" to be describing the likelihood of something that depended on multiple "crapshoots".
once again, you are moving the goal posts around and that was why the discussion came off the tracks.
Based on your original claims of what a crapshoot is I'd say the goalposts started out in the wrong place. And don't you think that your using the word to mean "no reasonable expectation of happening" had something to do with the conversation going off track?
if anything, a complete crapshoot would be decreasing the level of predictability (ie the outcome becoming less known) not increasing the unlikelihood (ie the outcome becoming more known).
Well, the definition that I put in the post included "anything unpredictable, risky, or problematical". Bigger crapshoot = bigger risk, bigger risk = less likely to go in your favor.
you are all over the map here, Bball.
Possibly. But did I jump all over the map, or was I pushed?
