What I did was use a common and accepted rhetorical strategy called
reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument, the arguer points out that the opposing argument leads to an absurd conclusion. By pointing out the absurd conclusion, the flaws in the opposing argument are emphasized. So, yes, I think it was ridiculous, and I intended it to be ridiculous. It is unusual for someone not to recognize it as a rhetorical strategy, so I did not think I had to explain it.
You said that the problem with PADI is that if you do something outside of the standards, you are on your own defending it in court. With an agency like NAUI, you liked the fact that they allow the instructor to add requirements to the course. You did not qualify that in any way. You did not indicate that some additons might not be acceptable. My
reductio ad absurdum example demonstrated that they will have to draw a line somewhere.
Where that comes into play is in a lawsuit, which was your original complaint about PADI and which you do not address with NAUI. Will NAUI defend an instructor in court if the instructor uses blatantly unsafe practices, like the SSI instructor from Alabama cited earlier?
A few years ago a Discover Scuba student died in Utah, and the lawsuit included both the instructor and PADI. The lawsuit said that the instructor was an "agent" of PADi when he was conducting the DSD. PADI responded that the instructor had done a number of things (actually, almost everything) in violation of standards, and so they were not at fault. If it had been NAUI as the agency, would they have said, "You bet! Everything the instructor did was outside of our standards, but we allow our instructors to do whatever they want, so, yep, we're guilty as charged. We'll write you a check in the morning."