In article
,
RicodJour wrote:



You're the one holding them up as some sort of authority.

Huh? It's early, I was up late and I'm only halfway through my first
cup of coffee, so maybe I'm missing something here... I'm holding up
the NFPA as some sort of authority? WTF does that mean? They ARE the
authority. Have you ever read your state's fire code? Why don't you
do a quick search of it and see how many times the NFPA is
referenced. It's almost on every damn page!

Let's see, first you hint that you're surprised or offended that I'd
claim you're holding them up as an authority, and then you, uh, hold
them up as an authority. Maybe you should have another cup.


Why would you assume that that report was the sum total of all of
their testing? I love this part - you are "pretty sure" there is no
reasonable basis for what an impartial, non-profit testing agency
recommends.

Yep. If they had a reasonable basis, they'd state it. I don't care if
jesus pops down out of the clouds and tells me to put nitrogen in my
tires, if he can't tell me a scientifically valid reason to do it, I
won't do it. And I'll tell him to his bearded prophet face that it's
irresponsible and immoral to advocate things based on junk logic.



You choose to ignore something, based on no data other than your
personal observation, and assume that an international agency is
fabricating data in some Machiavellian scheme? That about sum it up?

I don't doubt that 1/2 the detectors that failed were over 10 yrs. old.
What I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that that fact alone doesn't
mean jack ****. See HeyBub's post about cause and effect.