It can't be known if it's a "harmless error" until the judge rules on it.

The legal doctrine of harmless error is found in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, extensive case law and state statutes. It comes into use when a litigant appeals the decision of a judge or jury, arguing that an errorof law was made at trial that resulted in an incorrect decision or verdict. The appelate court then must decide whether the error was serious enough to strike down the decision made at trial. Review for harmless error involves a complicated test that applies to state and federal laws as well as rules of procedure. If an error is held to be serious, the appellate court is likely to set aside the decision of the trial court and may order a new trial. If it deems the error harmless, the appellate court affirms the lower court's decision. The doctrine of harmless error thus prevents an unnecessary new trial when the error alleged would not have affected the outcome of the original trial. See: http://www.answers.com/topic/harmless-error

If there is an error in doctrine then it could change the whole meaning of that doctrine and become misleading. While some error may be so insignificant that it does not alter the meaning of the doctrine. One error may be "Christ was able to perform miracles" but is quoted "Christ is able to perform miracles" The was and is does not change the meaning.

they're already harmless...how does it go harmless to harmless

lol trail and error i dare you. No please don't eat it. Should be harmless, i don't think it will make you sick but it might be very uncomfortable eating it. ;)