This is typical LFGSS. I'm not here to convince you of one thing or the other. I'm finishing work now so logging-off, enjoy your candle debate.
So, here's the debate:
Proposing the motion (CANDLEAREDEATH): Sparky
Countering (We heart candles): ?
Confused (We don't understand the motion): The rest of us.
Are you of the opinion that no mitigation is adequate for the risks inherent to naked flames?
In the scenario you describe, I understand the victim was left with a single exit path, and that serious injury was sustained. I suggest that, without blaming the victim who inspired your crusade, it is possible to avoid "OMYGODRUNAWAY!!!" situations by...
a) guarding the flame using an adequate enclosure
b) positioning the enclosure away from flammable objects
c) avoiding scenarios whereby you are unable to observe the state of the flame
d) avoiding scenarios whereby the fire can escape the enclosure and spread faster than you can safely escape.
Your attitude to this risk seems irrational and inappropriate for such an accomplished non-tabloid journalist.
So, here's the debate:
Proposing the motion (CANDLEAREDEATH): Sparky
Countering (We heart candles): ?
Confused (We don't understand the motion): The rest of us.
Are you of the opinion that no mitigation is adequate for the risks inherent to naked flames?
In the scenario you describe, I understand the victim was left with a single exit path, and that serious injury was sustained. I suggest that, without blaming the victim who inspired your crusade, it is possible to avoid "OMYGODRUNAWAY!!!" situations by...
a) guarding the flame using an adequate enclosure
b) positioning the enclosure away from flammable objects
c) avoiding scenarios whereby you are unable to observe the state of the flame
d) avoiding scenarios whereby the fire can escape the enclosure and spread faster than you can safely escape.
Your attitude to this risk seems irrational and inappropriate for such an accomplished non-tabloid journalist.