Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik
|
I'm a little surprised by that
response, because without some creative interpretation (which we might call "lawyering"*), it's hard to reconcile with the rule, which states:
All cylinders, regardless of source, must be identical to those listed on the Free Pneumatic Components Order Form (e.g. same part numbers).
Parker cylinders do not have the same part numbers as Bimba cylinders, so what are we to conclude? Hypothetically, I suppose the "e.g." clause could be a non-binding clarifying example like the one previously provided for the 80-inch rule (as opposed to "i.e.", which would be an unambiguous pronouncement), and "identical" could be short for "functionally identical". Even if that might be the case, I'd have to say the most obvious interpretation of the rule is that every cylinder's part number must match one provided on the form—why else would you give the example of matching numbers? Either way, that's worth clarifying once and for all in an update (if a rule is to be changed), or an unambiguous Q&A response.
Also (if we accept the permissive interpretation given above), why does the response state that these Parker cylinders must be from an old kit? If functionally identical (as opposed to matching-numbers identical) Parker cylinders are permitted under the 2
nd sentence of <R89>, then according to the 3
rd sentence, if they come from Parker, it's not necessary that they be from an old kit. (It must be either from Parker, from Bimba, or from an old kit; no combination of those things is required.)
*Not this again! 