a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: Murray is speculating the stains he saw were proof. >
Okay, that is a different story. But I think *you* are speculating here. You speculate that stains are not proof. I suppose just about anyone would agree that a rust water mark in a pipe and in an instrument is there because that's how high the water was. I would say that goes beyond speculation, right to the level of common-sense proof. I doubt you will find a plumber or some expert on pipes who looks at a stain and comes up with some other explanation. I doubt that you can think up some other plausible explanation, and if you do, you will be speculating. - Jed
