On Oct 25, 1:19Â*pm, aemeijers wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article Â*RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:08 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.
Ummm, yes, it does. Â*

Bzzzt. Sorry, it absolutely doesn't, but thanks for playing. Maybe you
were sick the day they taught logic in school.

You're both wrong. No, correlation doesn't mean 2 things are actually
related, but it shouldn't be ignored. Some as-yet-unknown 3rd condition
could be causing both observed conditions. When trying to figure
something out, if you have no other clues, correlation is a common place
to start looking.

There are a few definitions to the word implied.
im‹…ply /ɪmˈplaɪ/
€“verb (used with object), -plied, -ply‹…ing.
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words
implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.
4. Obsolete. to enfold.

As definitions in a dictionary are listed by how common the usage, and
since nearly everybody uses the word in the context of definition 1 or
2, where exactly am I wrong?

I never said that ten year old units are always dead. I was saying
that older units are more likely to malfunction and the risk of a dead
unit outweighs the reward of keeping a couple hundred bucks in your
pocket. More importantly, it's not my research even though I share
the opinion of the NFPA. Take it up with them.

R