The point was that, no matter how apparently ridiculous the conclusion, scarmig would accept it without question because the source was that credible. The more exaggerated the hypothesized conclusion, the more strongly that point was made.

I believe that scarmig's example very clearly stated his position.

I would bet large sums of money that I do not actually have that the conclusion we get will nowhere near that ridiculous. I would bet reasonably large sums of money that Abelson will prove not corruptible on this issue.