| Vorheriges Thema anzeigen :: Nächstes Thema anzeigen |
| Autor |
Nachricht |
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
|
| Nach oben |
|
 |
achtphasen
Anmeldedatum: 20.10.2008
Beiträge: 848
|
 Verfasst am: 20.07.2009, 23:55 Titel: |
 |
|
How do we know the LHC really is safe?
21 January 2009 by Mark Buchanan
| Zitat: | IF OUR impressive capacity for conscious reasoning is what most clearly sets us humans apart from other species, our capacity for self-deception over the significance of its conclusions must come a close second.
In the real world, this can be serious. To take a topical example, until recently, people who are supposed to know about such things were utterly confident that serious financial crises were a thing of the past. Financial mathematics of supposedly unprecedented sophistication said so. Just look at us now.
So it's timely to ask if we might be suffering from similar self-deception about other risks we think we understand. A trenchant new analysis by Toby Ord and his colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford gives pause for thought. The team's paper concerns the risks associated with extremely rare but potentially catastrophic events. They cite the start-up of
the Large Hadron Collider, which was challenged on the grounds that the high-energy particle collisions it generates might annihilate the Earth by creating a tiny black hole or a deadly shard of strange matter.
In a spectacular (and intentional) understatement, the physicists who first tried to put numbers on such risks - then in the context of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven, New York, a predecessor to the LHC - referred to potentially "profound implications for health and safety". Invoking quantum chromodynamics, what we know about the gravitational conditions for creating black holes, and our knowledge of near-Earth high-energy collisions due to cosmic rays, they put the chances of a "dangerous event" at around 10-9 per year.
That sounds pretty safe, and similarly small or smaller numbers have been cited for the LHC. But as Ord's team argues, this is not as reassuring as it seems: that's because this figure represents the chance of a dangerous event only if the physicists' argument is correct. What if it isn't?
Finding out requires some careful logic. Forget the LHC for the moment. Suppose some argument estimates probability X of an event, good or bad, happening. From a probabilistic point of view, Ord and colleagues point out, we cannot just accept this as the best estimate. The real probability is:
(X × PX) + (Y × PY)
that is, X multiplied by the probability (PX) that
the argument is correct, plus the probability the argument is wrong (PY) multiplied by the chance (Y) that the event will happen if the argument is wrong.
This matters hardly at all if X has some reasonably high value such as 50 per cent, or even 1 per cent. But if X is very small, say 10-20, while the chance the argument is wrong is 10-6, then the first figure becomes as good as meaningless. As the authors put it: "If the probability estimate given by an argument is dwarfed by the chance that the argument itself is flawed, then the estimate is suspect."
In other words, conclusions about extraordinarily small probabilities require equally extraordinary care. Any estimate of the likelihood of an event occurring should take into account the chance that the analysis on which that probability has been assigned is flawed or based on error. This is the principle of epistemological uncertainty - that we can't know anything with total certainty - in action.
Back to the LHC. Many people, me included, find the most convincing argument for the safety of the collider comes from considering the energy densities frequently created by cosmic rays colliding with particles in the Earth's atmosphere or elsewhere. If the LHC is likely to be dangerous, we should long since have been annihilated. Even so, as convincing as this is, the same problem recurs. The argument has to be more than convincing: we have to be sure there is only the tiniest chance we could be wrong - which is much harder to establish.
Lots of arguments do turn out to be wrong. To get an idea of how many, Ord and his colleagues looked at the proportion of published scientific papers that are eventually retracted. Using Medline as their source, they found it to be around 1 in 10,000. Given that Medline covers mostly top-ranking journals, they estimate the error rate for all journals to be more like 1 in 1000, which suggests a fairly high chance of error in any argument. And remember, scientists often don't publish painful and embarrassing retractions unless forced, so the true rate may be even higher.
Of course, the physicists who considered the LHC risks are capable and cautious people so we might think the chance of their argument being wrong is smaller than 1 in 1000. But even if it were a thousand times smaller, only 10-6, this still seems to undermine the authority of their extremely small estimates.
Of course, it is equally important not to be too pessimistic either. The fact is that we have no knowledge at all about the likelihood of an event happening if one or more of its underlying arguments are wrong. Even if the argument does not reach the required level of certainty, this does not mean we are in danger - only that we don't have any guarantee of safety. Not the same thing at all.
Ord and his colleagues rightly stre
ss that further elaboration of the arguments for the safety of the LHC might well reduce the chance of the overall argument for its safety being wrong. But until this kind of work has been done, they suggest, the current safety report cannot be seen as the final word, which seems entirely reasonable to me.
This is an area where it is crucial to focus on the logic, because our intuitions are no help. Most of us, I suspect, have a gut feeling that certain things "could never happen" and that "people who worry about this are crazy". Sadly, the fact that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet is no guarantee that we never will.
It's easy for any of us to be seduced by the nature of logical thinking and its illusion of certainty. We generally strive to become aware of what former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously called the "known knowns" and the "known unknowns", but are perilously ignorant of the "unknown unknowns", and, worse, blithely unaware of our own ignorance. This becomes particularly dangerous when it hides flaws in an argument we are relying on for reassurance that potentially catastrophic events are virtually impossible.
It's easy to be seduced by the nature of logical thinking and its illusion of certainty
It is perhaps an ultimate irony of our human longing for certainty that no amount of effort can definitively prove anything, for we can never discount the possibility that we have=2
0made a mistake, and if we enlist others to help us, they too may make mistakes.
Maybe there's another lesson here: that mathematical certainty isn't all it's cracked up to be. We are, after all, biological organisms, and biology never bothers to prove anything. Cell design, for instance, reflects a crazy historical legacy of structures cobbled together to produce workable solutions to thousands of temporary problems. Perhaps we shouldn't insist that good reasoning conforms to some "pure" proof-making ideal, and accept it is more like those ad hoc biological processes that leave us fallible and vulnerable, but resilient enough to get by in an uncertain world. |
|
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
missionman
Anmeldedatum: 05.10.2008
Beiträge: 265
|
| Verfasst am: 21.07.2009, 08:38 Titel: |
|
|
| achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | How do we know the LHC really is safe?
21 January 2009 by Mark Buchanan
| Zitat: | IF OUR impressive capacity for conscious reasoning is what most clearly sets us humans apart from other species, our capacity for self-deception over the significance of its conclusions must come a close second.
In the real world, this can be serious. To take a topical example, until recently, people who are supposed to know about such things were utterly confident that serious financial crises were a thing of the past. Financial mathematics of supposedly unprecedented sophistication said so. Just look at us now.
So it's timely to ask if we might be suffering from similar self-deception about other risks we think we understand. A trenchant new analysis by Toby Ord and his colleagues at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford gives pause for thought. The team's paper concerns the risks associated with extremely rare but potentially catastrophic events. They cite the start-up of
the Large Hadron Collider, which was challenged on the grounds that the high-energy particle collisions it generates might annihilate the Earth by creating a tiny black hole or a deadly shard of strange matter.
In a spectacular (and intentional) understatement, the physicists who first tried to put numbers on such risks - then in the context of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven, New York, a predecessor to the LHC - referred to potentially "profound implications for health and safety". Invoking quantum chromodynamics, what we know about the gravitational conditions for creating black holes, and our knowledge of near-Earth high-energy collisions due to cosmic rays, they put the chances of a "dangerous event" at around 10-9 per year.
That sounds pretty safe, and similarly small or smaller numbers have been cited for the LHC. But as Ord's team argues, this is not as reassuring as it seems: that's because this figure represents the chance of a dangerous event only if the physicists' argument is correct. What if it isn't?
Finding out requires some careful logic. Forget the LHC for the moment. Suppose some argument estimates probability X of an event, good or bad, happening. From a probabilistic point of view, Ord and colleagues point out, we cannot just accept this as the best estimate. The real probability is:
(X × PX) + (Y × PY)
that is, X multiplied by the probability (PX) that
the argument is correct, plus the probability the argument is wrong (PY) multiplied by the chance (Y) that the event will happen if the argument is wrong.
This matters hardly at all if X has some reasonably high value such as 50 per cent, or even 1 per cent. But if X is very small, say 10-20, while the chance the argument is wrong is 10-6, then the first figure becomes as good as meaningless. As the authors put it: "If the probability estimate given by an argument is dwarfed by the chance that the argument itself is flawed, then the estimate is suspect."
In other words, conclusions about extraordinarily small probabilities require equally extraordinary care. Any estimate of the likelihood of an event occurring should take into account the chance that the analysis on which that probability has been assigned is flawed or based on error. This is the principle of epistemological uncertainty - that we can't know anything with total certainty - in action.
Back to the LHC. Many people, me included, find the most convincing argument for the safety of the collider comes from considering the energy densities frequently created by cosmic rays colliding with particles in the Earth's atmosphere or elsewhere. If the LHC is likely to be dangerous, we should long since have been annihilated. Even so, as convincing as this is, the same problem recurs. The argument has to be more than convincing: we have to be sure there is only the tiniest chance we could be wrong - which is much harder to establish.
Lots of arguments do turn out to be wrong. To get an idea of how many, Ord and his colleagues looked at the proportion of published scientific papers that are eventually retracted. Using Medline as their source, they found it to be around 1 in 10,000. Given that Medline covers mostly top-ranking journals, they estimate the error rate for all journals to be more like 1 in 1000, which suggests a fairly high chance of error in any argument. And remember, scientists often don't publish painful and embarrassing retractions unless forced, so the true rate may be even higher.
Of course, the physicists who considered the LHC risks are capable and cautious people so we might think the chance of their argument being wrong is smaller than 1 in 1000. But even if it were a thousand times smaller, only 10-6, this still seems to undermine the authority of their extremely small estimates.
Of course, it is equally important not to be too pessimistic either. The fact is that we have no knowledge at all about the likelihood of an event happening if one or more of its underlying arguments are wrong. Even if the argument does not reach the required level of certainty, this does not mean we are in danger - only that we don't have any guarantee of safety. Not the same thing at all.
Ord and his colleagues rightly stre
ss that further elaboration of the arguments for the safety of the LHC might well reduce the chance of the overall argument for its safety being wrong. But until this kind of work has been done, they suggest, the current safety report cannot be seen as the final word, which seems entirely reasonable to me.
This is an area where it is crucial to focus on the logic, because our intuitions are no help. Most of us, I suspect, have a gut feeling that certain things "could never happen" and that "people who worry about this are crazy". Sadly, the fact that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet is no guarantee that we never will.
It's easy for any of us to be seduced by the nature of logical thinking and its illusion of certainty. We generally strive to become aware of what former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously called the "known knowns" and the "known unknowns", but are perilously ignorant of the "unknown unknowns", and, worse, blithely unaware of our own ignorance. This becomes particularly dangerous when it hides flaws in an argument we are relying on for reassurance that potentially catastrophic events are virtually impossible.
It's easy to be seduced by the nature of logical thinking and its illusion of certainty
It is perhaps an ultimate irony of our human longing for certainty that no amount of effort can definitively prove anything, for we can never discount the possibility that we have=2
0made a mistake, and if we enlist others to help us, they too may make mistakes.
Maybe there's another lesson here: that mathematical certainty isn't all it's cracked up to be. We are, after all, biological organisms, and biology never bothers to prove anything. Cell design, for instance, reflects a crazy historical legacy of structures cobbled together to produce workable solutions to thousands of temporary problems. Perhaps we shouldn't insist that good reasoning conforms to some "pure" proof-making ideal, and accept it is more like those ad hoc biological processes that leave us fallible and vulnerable, but resilient enough to get by in an uncertain world. |
|
Offen gestanden verstehe ich kein Wort - seine PX/PY Argumentation widerspricht jeder Logik und der Rest ist Gezwirbel. Kann mir jemand helfen?
MM |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 21.07.2009, 09:28 Titel: |
|
|
| achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | How do we know the LHC really is safe?
21 January 2009 by Mark Buchanan
| Zitat: | IF OUR impressive capacity for conscious reasoning is what most clearly sets us humans apart from other species, our capacity for self-deception over the significance of its conclusions must come a close second.
(...)
Maybe there's another lesson here: that mathematical certainty isn't all it's cracked up to be. We are, after all, biological organisms, and biology never bothers to prove anything. Cell design, for instance, reflects a crazy historical legacy of structures cobbled together to produce workable solutions to thousands of temporary problems. Perhaps we shouldn't insist that good reasoning conforms to some "pure" proof-making ideal, and accept it is more like those ad hoc biological processes that leave us fallible and vulnerable, but resilient enough to get by in an uncertain world. |
|
Sehr geehrter Herr Fasnacht,
ich danke Ihnen herzlich für die Zusendung. Da sich New Scientist noch nicht gemeldet hat, ist Ihre Version die einzige, auf die ich mich beziehen kann.
Dadurch verzögert sich die Fertigstellung meiner Rezension leider um mindestens einen weiteren Tag, ich bitte um Verständnis.
Da ich nun doch einige Änderungen, vor allem in den hier auf AC zu diesem Thema eröffneten Threads ergeben haben, werde ich nach der Fertigstellung ein weiteres Review durchführen.
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 21.07.2009, 11:58 Titel: |
|
|
| missionman hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | How do we know the LHC really is safe?
21 January 2009 by Mark Buchanan
| Zitat: |
(...)
From a probabilistic point of view, Ord and colleagues point out, we cannot just accept this as the best estimate. The real probability is:
(X × PX) + (Y × PY)
that is, X multiplied by the probability (PX) that
the argument is correct, plus the probability the argument is wrong (PY) multiplied by the chance (Y) that the event will happen if the argument is wrong.
(...)
|
|
Offen gestanden verstehe ich kein Wort - seine PX/PY Argumentation widerspricht jeder Logik und der Rest ist Gezwirbel. Kann mir jemand helfen? |
Hallo Missionman,
Buchanan verwendet nur eine andere Schreibweise für den Satz von Bayes:
P(A) = P(A|B)*P(B) + P(A|notB)*P(notB)
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Aragorn
Anmeldedatum: 23.06.2006
Beiträge: 1120
|
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 21.07.2009, 14:32 Titel: |
|
|
Hallo zusammen,
es ist sogar noch schlimmer:
In der Antragsschrift steht das folgende:
| Zitat: | Der Physiker Mark Buchanan greift die Feststellungen der Oxford-Risikoforscher
zur LHC-Risikobewertung auf und spricht in seiner Veröffentlichung 27.01.09 „How
do we know the LHC really is safe?“ gar von einem „Selbstbetrug“ („selfdeception“). |
Und zum Vergleich sei hier die Originalaussage von Mark Buchanan genannt:
| Zitat: | IF OUR impressive capacity for conscious reasoning is what most clearly sets us humans apart from other species, our capacity for self-deception over the significance of its conclusions must come a close second.
(…)
So it's timely to ask if we might be suffering from similar self-deception about other risks we think we understand. |
"Fast" dasselbe, nicht wahr ? - Tatsächlich spricht Mark Buchanan von Selbstbetrug, aber nicht im direkten Zusammenhang mit dem LHC !
Das vereinfacht meine Rezension in diesem Punkte natürlich wesentlich.
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
achtphasen
Anmeldedatum: 20.10.2008
Beiträge: 848
|
| Verfasst am: 22.07.2009, 12:59 Titel: |
|
|
| ralfkannenberg hat Folgendes geschrieben: | "Fast" dasselbe, nicht wahr ? - Tatsächlich spricht Mark Buchanan von Selbstbetrug, aber nicht im direkten Zusammenhang mit dem LHC !
Das vereinfacht meine Rezension in diesem Punkte natürlich wesentlich. |
Hallo Ralf Kannenberg, wie Sie hier sicherlich bereits gelesen haben, werden "other risks" in Mark Buchanan's Paper hauptsächlich betreffs LHC-Risiken angesprochen. Somit ist Herrn Möhrings Bezugnahme keinesfalls irreführend, wie Ihr letzter Eintrag suggeriert, sondern schlicht angebracht.
| Mark Buchanan hat Folgendes geschrieben: | Of course, the physicists who considered the LHC risks are capable and cautious people so we might think the chance of their argument being wrong is smaller than 1 in 1000. But even if it were a thousand times smaller, only 10-6, this still seems to undermine the authority of their extremely small estimates.
Of course, it is equally important not to be too pessimistic either. The fact is that we have no knowledge at all about the likelihood of an event happening if one or more of its underlying arguments are wrong. Even if the argument does not reach the required level of certainty, this does not mean we are in danger - only that we don't have any guarantee of safety. Not the same thing at all. |
Diese Zeilen mögen doch bitte bedacht werden, wenn inskünftig davon die Rede sein soll, Cern und G&M hätten 'hin zur sicheren Seite abgeschätzt...
- einerseits unterliegen auch Grösser/Kleiner-Abschätzung einer Irrtumsmöglichkeit.
- und andererseits fehlt eine (unabhängige) Untersuchung ob G&M tatsächlich ALLE Berechnungsparameter des Unbekannten haben mit einbeziehen können.
Hier möchte ich noch auf den heute von 'Barney' neueröffneten Thread Zeigt das Standardmodell erste Schwächen? verweisen: | Barney hat Folgendes geschrieben: | ausgehend von W. Greiner´s Buch "Quantum Chromodynamics" möchte ich dieses etwas "ketzerische" Thema stellen. Natürlich soll dabei nicht das Standardmodell selbst thematiserit werden und auch nicht die QCD (s. dazu Mac Mag´s Handbuch-Link als pdf).
Interessant ist nur die Aussage im letzten Kapitel des oben genannten Buches. Demnach sind Strangelets eine Konsequenz des Standardmodells. Da ich mir nicht vorstellen kann, dass sich Leute wie Prof. Stöcker wirklich grob verrechnen, auf der anderen Seite aber gesagt wurde, dass die Existenz der Strangelets durchaus in Frage gestellt werden kann, stelle ich das aktuelle Thema in Erwartung interessanter Beiträge und Meinungen zur Diskussion. |
Wie denn kann von sicheren Aussagen hin zur sicheren Seite gesprochen werden, wenn die grundlegenden Berechnungsgrundlagen (Das Standardmodell) auch nur möglicherweise erste Schwächen zeigt?
gute Grüsse |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Kondensat
Anmeldedatum: 23.10.2008
Beiträge: 874
|
| Verfasst am: 22.07.2009, 13:12 Titel: |
|
|
| achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Hier möchte ich noch auf den heute von 'Barney' neueröffneten Thread Zeigt das Standardmodell erste Schwächen? verweisen: |
klasse.......als ich eben barneys zeilen lass, hab ich mich gefragt, wie lange achtphRasen wohl brauchen wird, bis er das in seine "argumentation" einbeziehen wird.....
es ist wirklich zum lachen.....
_________________
resistance is futile.... |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 22.07.2009, 13:12 Titel: |
|
|
| achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Hallo Ralf Kannenberg, wie Sie hier sicherlich bereits gelesen haben, werden "other risks" in Mark Buchanan's Paper hauptsächlich betreffs LHC-Risiken angesprochen. Somit ist Herrn Möhrings Bezugnahme keinesfalls irreführend, wie Ihr letzter Eintrag suggeriert, sondern schlicht angebracht. |
Sehr geehrter Herr Fasnacht,
ich habe bereits dort geantwortet und nochmals den Bezug, den Mark Buchanan vornimmt, genauer erläutert.
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 22.07.2009, 13:16 Titel: |
|
|
| achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | Wie denn kann von sicheren Aussagen hin zur sicheren Seite gesprochen werden, wenn die grundlegenden Berechnungsgrundlagen (Das Standardmodell) auch nur möglicherweise erste Schwächen zeigt? |
Sehr geehrter Herr Fasnacht,
diese "Schwächen" sind Ergänzungen.
Ausserdem ist es durchaus möglich, auch innerhalb eines fehlerhaften Modells Abschätzungen zur sicheren Seite zu tätigen; zum Beispiel dann, wenn man weiss, wie in welcher Grössemnordnung die Fehler des Modells liegen.
Ich sage nicht, dass das immer gelingen wird, aber es gibt Fälle, in denen sowas möglich ist und somit ist Ihre Schlussfolgerung voreilig und somit unzutreffend.
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
Aragorn
Anmeldedatum: 23.06.2006
Beiträge: 1120
|
| Verfasst am: 22.07.2009, 15:03 Titel: |
|
|
Eine Argumentation, mit der sich jede beliebige Tätigkeit mit gleicher Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit als katastrophenauslösend ansehen läßt, ist für eine Risikoanalyse völlig ungeeignet. Schließlich will man herausfinden: Wo ergibt eine Risiko-Nutzen-Abwägung ein positives Ergebnis.
Argumente die für jede beliebige Tätigkeit zu dem Ergebnis kommen, alles sei abzulehnen sind für die Risikoanalyse völlig ungeeignet.
Da die Argumentationen auf achtphasen.com alle so angelegt sind, ist die komplette Künstler-Plapper-Seite für die Tonne.
Gruß Helmut |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 23.07.2009, 12:49 Titel: |
|
|
| ralfkannenberg hat Folgendes geschrieben: | | ich habe bereits dort geantwortet und nochmals den Bezug, den Mark Buchanan vornimmt, genauer erläutert. |
Hallo zusammen,
da der Beitrag dort noch nicht freigeschaltet werden konnte, erlaube ich mir aus Gründen der besseren Transparenz, diese Frage ausnahmsweise auch hier zu beantworten:
| Zitat: | Sehr geehrter Herr Uebbing,
in der Antragsschrift wird der Eindruck erweckt, bei der Sicherheit des LHC läge ein Selbstbetrug vor. Dem ist aber, wenn man die Präsentation Buchanans anschaut, nicht so; hier ist der Ausgangspunkt, dass man sich in einer falschen Sicherheit wiegen könnte und von diesem Ausgangspunkt ausgehend wird auf die Arbeit von Ord et.al. verwiesen sowie beispielhaft auch der LHC genannt.
Er hätte genauso gut auch das spontane Sonnenerlöschen als Beispiel für die Arbeit von Ord et.al. nehmen können. Mark Buchanan differenziert ja auch etwas näher:
"this does not mean we are in danger - only that we don't have any guarantee of safety. Not the same thing at all."
Und im letzten Abschnitt seiner Präsentation macht er sich ja auch Gedanken, wie man mit solchen Risiken umgehen könnte.
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg |
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
achtphasen
Anmeldedatum: 20.10.2008
Beiträge: 848
|
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
ralfkannenberg
Anmeldedatum: 22.02.2006
Beiträge: 4788
|
| Verfasst am: 23.07.2009, 15:53 Titel: |
|
|
| achtphasen hat Folgendes geschrieben: | Hallo Ralf Kannenberg
ich möchte mich bei Ihnen entschuldigen Ihren Kommentar für einmal nicht zeitnah freigeschaltet zu haben. Die betreffende Benachrichtigung 'meiner' Blogengine ist in der Spamflut untergegangen. |
Sehr geehrter Herr Fasnacht,
das ist doch wirklich überhaupt kein Problem: Sie schalten fast immer die Beiträge zeitnah frei und gerade in so einem Fall habe ich sowieso jederzeit Verständnis, wenn es mal - und es kommt wirklich sehr selten vor - ein bisschen länger dauert, zumal es sicherlich auch Tage gibt, an denen Sie anderes zu tun haben als sich einzuloggen.
Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg |
|
| Nach oben |
|
|
|
|
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.
|
|
FAQ
Suchen
Mitgliederliste
Benutzergruppen
Registrieren
Profil
Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen
Login
