Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

Sigh....

1. The system used for the test is not sufficiently resolving to distinguish differences that might be audible on a better system.

I'll do this on their system

2. There are mistakes in the system that were not found even if there was a search for mistakes or errors. Saying that the test procedures are thorough doesn’t necessarily mean they really are thorough.

I'll do this on their system

3. The hearing capability of the testee is not up to the task.

The claimant is the testee. If they can make a claim sighted and state it's just their ears then they can do this in the dark. 

4. For a blind test involving many trials, say 10 or more, the odds are high that the testee doesn’t have the focus or strength to dinstinguish audible differences for periods of time without tiring. You can’t just say oh, well, that’s the way it goes.

Then the differences aren't as 'readily apparent' and 'easy to discern'  or other colloquialisms that I've seen bandied about. 

5. System issues that go undetected due to naïveté of those involved in the test. Directionality of Fuses, directionality of cables, Polarity check of all connections, etc.

I'll do this on their system

6. Using unfamiliar music for the test.

I'll do this on their system

7. Using a test system unfamiliar to the testee.

I'll do this on their system. In 2015 at an AQ demo I saw a people hear differences in Ethernet cabling in a really crummy room on equipment they had no familiarity with, music that most likely they weren't familiar with. 

8. Weather and other “external variables” that affect the sound of any system that could make hearing subtle differences in sound difficult or impossible.

I'll try to schedule my visit with you to avoid thunderstorms. 

What if results are positive?

Those get posted too.

@geoffkait   My apologies 

gdhal

And this is why blind testing is very fair and extremely useful in these matters. It allows the listener who is subjected to the test to "guess" or otherwise "perceive" a difference

This shows a complete misunderstanding of scientific listening tests in particular and scientific testing in general. The listener is not "subjected to the test" any more than a patient is " subjected to the test" in a drug trial. Rather, in a listening test, it is the equipment that is under test. In a drug trial, it is the drug under test, not the patient. If the drug proves ineffective, scientists don’t say "the patient failed the test." They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.

The notion that a test is "fair" or not is also misguided. It is either conducted in a way that is scientific, or not. Simple.

They can only conclude that the drug was not effective in that patient during the test period. And that is why drug trials include more than one patient.

Correct and I'm willing to do this with a few 'patients' (claimants) to see if their drug of choice "sighted evaluation" is merely sugar pill.