Murray is speculating the stains he saw were proof. They are not.
A piping drawing would end the argument.
On 8/25/2016 5:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for
Murray's speculations.
Those are observations, not speculations.
Look here now: If you want to say "I don't believe it" or "I think
Murray is lying" go ahead and say that. That is a valid argument. You
have your reasons for thinking that.
However, when you claim that Murray says he "speculated," you distort
the discussion. He did not say he speculated. He said he observed
"iron stain." You are misrepresenting his claims. Perhaps you are
confused, or you forgot what he said. Let me remind you:
"The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes
indicate that the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as
required by the manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a
substantial portion free of liquid. See Exhibit A."
"Visible" means "observed." It is NOT SPECULATION. It could be a lie.
It could be a mistake. But it is not speculation. You confuse the
issue by calling it that. Let's keep things straight, please.
- Jed
