In my job, a guarantee is (or used to be) a document where a car manufacturer guarantees his product; these days it's called warranty.
The Australian Oxford dictionary defines the word thus:
guarantee / 1 a formal promise or assurance, esp. that something is of a specified quality and durability. b document giving such an undertaking.
It then goes on about law stuff, where the word is spelled differently.
In hindsight ...
I should never have mentioned the word ‘oath’ or ‘oath like’. It completely is the wrong application here.
Rather than using the word ‘guarantee’ it also would have been better to call it a ‘clear and concise assurance’; something to that effect anyway.
|Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 164):|
Regarding a pure statement, the signature of relevant people under the paper should be enough.
It probably is not.
Yes, by having put their names to that paper, they own up to the work they’ve done. And incredible work, too, it is.
But.., they have not put their names to what the paper does not say or give, i.e. an unreserved assurance.
This may seem like a play on words but, ultimately, there is a big and distinct difference.
(In today’s world, deception is not by way of what we are told; often it’s what we are not told that is the deception.)
|Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 164):|
Btw, afaik they mentioned that they published all the data lines for MH370, but not all cells of each record. At the time, Mandala499 gave hints that some cells contain propriety information. But iirc the complete data was revealed at least to British Authorities.
I’m not fully aware of this; I've missed that at the time.
Then again ....
If there was proprietary information contained in the data, the reader of the paper should have been made aware of that. Likewise, if the full set of data was released to the British, that, too, should have been mentioned clearly and unambiguously.
We are not talking about writing as we do it here on A.net with our replies; which sometimes, unfortunately, is just waffling on, or whatever your preferred expression is for bullshit.
The paper we are discussing is endorsed or at least associated with the ...
THE JOURNAL OF
NAVIGATION (2015), 68, 1–22. © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2014
See the URL below ...
As such it as an important document and it also gives the appearance of a quasi-science paper.
And I reckon it does not meet the standards for that.
Is that important?
No, it is not important if the paper is intended for the benefit of ‘Joe Public’ and the tabloid journalists.
Then again, if it was, the paper should have pointed that out; mind you, not in that derogatory fashion.
If, on the other hand, the aim was to provide a paper which gives us a reference to ‘confirm’ aspects of the disappearance of MH370, then it fails.
(And as always with the proviso, ‘in my humble opinion’.)
|Quoting 777Jet (Reply 163):|
Even if the paper came with some kind of written 'guarantee' it still does not 'confirm' anything.
Now you are confusing us!
You are telling us now that even if the paper did contain an unreserved assurance, a guarantee, it still would not confirm anything.
And yet, only a day ago you said this:
|Quoting 777Jet (Reply 138):|
The following publication is what ultimately made me personally believe that the data is accurate and therefore at least good enough to confirm how long the plane was powered / flying with fuel for:
In other words, you were saying that (in your opinion) the data is good enough to 'confirm' how long for 9M-MRO
I say it is not good enough because we haven't been given the necessary and unreserved assurances.
Whilst it does not carry much weight what I say, it is important what a paper says or does not say, when it appears to be endorsed by a highly regarded institution.
[Edited 2015-04-03 01:51:16]