@iron_yuppie 86D chess. Good one.
It ain’t just my opinion… I do see your point… it probably accomplishes about what everything else on here accomplishes…
In general, intelligent people get together and create standards for a reason. This forum is not exempt from such motivation. We should try to do things better and that’s what I try to contribute on here. That’s why you are here.
If the forum owners don’t want to adopt best practices or industry standards then so be it. But don’t give the impression that the two opinions are of equal value in terms of risk reduction. That’s simply not the case.
FYI: I tried to share this the other day but it was deleted. Really was a low move… Hope it helps someone (of course the post may be gone tomorrow morning 
). I’m not a quitter.
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:guide:51:ed-3:v1:en
See section 4.2
4 Use of the terms “safety” and “safe”
4.1 The term “safe” is often understood by the general public as the state of being protected from all hazards. However, this is a misunderstanding: “safe” is rather the state of being protected from recognized hazards that are likely to cause harm. Some level of risk is inherent in products or systems (see 3.14).
4.2 The use of the terms “safety” and “safe” as descriptive adjectives should be avoided when they convey no useful extra information. In addition, they are likely to be misinterpreted as an assurance of freedom from risk.
The recommended approach is to replace, wherever possible, the terms “safety” and “safe” with an indication of the objective.
EXAMPLES
“Protective helmet” instead of “safety helmet”; “protective impedance device” instead of “safety impedance”; “slip resistant floor-covering” instead of “safe floor-covering”.
Also see section 3 for nice definitions.