🚀 go-pugleaf

erich not devnull wrote:
> 
> In git.general sol <solomon@angband.org> wrote:
> 
> + Nor does it change the fact that an 8 year old with a gun is much more
> + liable to accidentally hurt someone than a grown man with a gun.
> 
> Prove it. 

How, exactly?  Maybe by giving each member of a set of
randomly-selected eight-year-olds a loaded gun, then giving
each member of a set of randomly-selected forty-year-olds a
loaded gun, and seeing which set, when left unsupervised and
untrained, causes the most carnage?  Thanks, but I'd rather
not be responsible for the outcome.  Maybe I place too high
a value on common sense, but I think it can be said, without
much argument, that a person who is considered incapable of
voting, drinking, driving, entering into contracts, and
crossing busy streets without supervision is probably also
incapable of judicious use of deadly force.  But I guess
that's just me.

> And I presume you mean ``likley?'' 

liable, definition 2(b): "exposed or subject to some usually
adverse contingency or action," example: "watch out or
you're liable to fall."

Usage: "Both liable and apt when followed by an infinitive
are used nearly interchangeably with likely. Although
conflicting advice has been given over the years, most
current commentators accept apt when so used. They generally
recommend limiting liable to situations having an
undesirable outcome, and our evidence shows that in edited
writing it is more often so used than not."

from <http://www.m-w.com/>

> Because of Juvinile Crime
> laws, he's certainly less *liable* *for* hurting someone.

liable, definition 1(a): obligated according to law or
equity

You know, words occasionally have more than one definition. 
Don't criticize someone for using one YOU don't recognize
without checking first. 

Drew