Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is silly to leave objections like this in the air, when they are so easy > to answer. Just give the model of the pump. Is that so hard? The more they > neglect to do that, the more justified the suspicion becomes. > No, it isn't hard, but they are not "neglecting" the issue. They are unaware of the fact that you and others suspect that the pump may be a problem. No one has communicated this to them, as far as I know. They have no reason to tell you the exact pump model. Let me explain. There can be no rational question that these people can read a weight scale, and use a graduated cylinder. There are no rational reasons to doubt the flow rate. The reasons you come up with are mere excuses. You are moving the goalposts to evade the issue. Even if someone were to give you the model number, you would demand proof they are not lying or that it really was the model. Since you do not trust they can read a weight scale, why should you trust they will give you the right model number? You demand they use a bigger reservoir, enough to last 1 hour. Suppose they do? You will then demand a 2-hour reservoir. Then you will demand proof that there is not a block of glass or something in the reservoir taking up space, making the capacity look bigger than it is. Then you will demand something else, and something else after that. Skeptics can play this game indefinitely, moving the goalposts down the field, outside the stadium, and into the next county. If you abandon reasonable, scientific standards and declare that people cannot be depended upon to read a weight scale, that is tantamount to saying you not trust these people. You think they not even minimally competent to do a grade-school level task. Or you think they are dishonest. Nothing they can do or say will convince you of anything. In that case, you are not serious, and they are justified in ignoring your demands. So am I, and that is what I intend to do. - Jed
