Quadibloc:
My point, though, was that "havoc" has been used to refer to even the
most minor sorts of tumult - anything which causes mess, disorder, or
confusion... as caused by characters portrayed by such actresses as
Katharine Hepburn or Lucille Ball... and thus your criticism of the
NASA news release was unjustified.

Perhaps I should simply extend my criticism to others who misuse te
word "havoc." Or, to keep it simple, kindly refer to my sig.

The Universe is a big place, with many energetic phenomena in it. It
is indifferent to the welfare of the intelligent life that has arisen
within it; and, in most places, it can _afford_ to be so.

Since I seem to be in a nitpicking mood, I would say that

a) You have stated the obvious in noting that nature is indifferent to
us.

b) I'm not fond of the anthropomorphism of nature as exhibited in
"...it can afford..." I don't think that nature can afford or not
afford anything. I, however, cannot afford the Aston Martin that I
want.

c) Accepting that nature can afford certain things and not others, I
believe that it can /always/ afford to be indifferent to us. That could
be wrong, as our place in the Universe is not well understood, and we
do not know if humanity is destined to do Big Things that will have a
universal impact. If that is our destiny, then nature should nurture us
so that we are around when the time comes to do those Big Things.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm