It’s not a change of subject. The “did any other witness say..” counterargument is fallacious.
Asserting that Hines meant that the building power went out creates a prediction, in a classic Karl Popper vein: everyone else in the building would have also seen the power go out. In turn, we should then expect at least one of these other unenlightened people to have spoken up about a the the remarkable coincidence of the lights mysteriously going out at a most interesting time. Dodging the issue trying to assert a non-existent fallacy isn't going to help you with anything other than looking like an ever bigger dork, kid.
We’re talking about what Hine said.
I'm talking about what happened, what Hines
meant being the point of contention. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about at this point. Increasingly, your aim seems to be wasting everyone's time. Including your own.
You act like you not only can read her mind retroactively, but you also know what her phone looked like.
Again, I know what multi-line phones were like back in the analog Jurassic. You got what AT&T gave you and every business that had multiple lines, but didn't have it's own private branch/switchboard, had phones that looked like the earlier photo. Getting mad about this is like getting mad when I say that Geneva Hine's car had a steering wheel.
And I don't need to read her mind. I only need to read testimony. The sentence that associates the lights going out with calls falling off. The sentence that notes that the phones started "winking" when calls began to come back in. The lack of any expression of surprise of suspicion that the power would go out at that point. The lack of anyone else's testifying that they also experienced a power outage. The knowledge of 1960's multiline telephony.