Arggg...no worse killjoy than having to explain one's wise-ass comments, but you seem like a nice guy Audioari1. I'm just undecided about how sincere you are, because I assume your posts are totally on the level, which makes me question whether your threadhead was really a troll.
Regardless, you asked for it, you got it: Above you said you found the manufacturer's explanations "plausible". Then you equated this mysterious principle with the photos-in-the-freezer experiment, which you correctly described as seeming "ridiculous", "crazy" and "silly" -- not exactly synonyms of "plausible". Ergo, when you call for "seriousness", who knows?, you might actually be calling for jollity and snarkiness.
Anyway, I'm dead serious in my message, I'm just choosing not to write that way because the subject doesn't deserve it, and besides this way is more fun. In addition (oh the tedium, but we're almost done), you fail to notice that it's a little late in the day and therefore unintentionally funny to call for "wise-ass comments" to be kept to a "minimum" when they already comprise at least half the thread -- my inference being that this is evidence of someone having their head in the sand with rose-colored glasses on (to mix a metaphor and leave a participle dangling all at once), and not coincidentally that's exactly what's required to give any credence to frauds like the CLC and the nonsense "behind" it to begin with. Hope that helped...
Regardless, you asked for it, you got it: Above you said you found the manufacturer's explanations "plausible". Then you equated this mysterious principle with the photos-in-the-freezer experiment, which you correctly described as seeming "ridiculous", "crazy" and "silly" -- not exactly synonyms of "plausible". Ergo, when you call for "seriousness", who knows?, you might actually be calling for jollity and snarkiness.
Anyway, I'm dead serious in my message, I'm just choosing not to write that way because the subject doesn't deserve it, and besides this way is more fun. In addition (oh the tedium, but we're almost done), you fail to notice that it's a little late in the day and therefore unintentionally funny to call for "wise-ass comments" to be kept to a "minimum" when they already comprise at least half the thread -- my inference being that this is evidence of someone having their head in the sand with rose-colored glasses on (to mix a metaphor and leave a participle dangling all at once), and not coincidentally that's exactly what's required to give any credence to frauds like the CLC and the nonsense "behind" it to begin with. Hope that helped...