Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?
- Thread starter Shooff82
- Start date
- Status
The one thing I know is this: I would not touch any product from any company that has had some sort of run-in with the FTC with a ten foot pole. Various companies over the years have been fined by the FTC for false advertising and so forth. STP was fined twice. The makers of Slick50 were fined (although the composition of Slick50 has changed since that time also). The makers of Duralube were fined.
Any company that gets on the wrong side of the FTC-I don't need their products. The FTC does not issue fines for no reason.
Any company that gets on the wrong side of the FTC-I don't need their products. The FTC does not issue fines for no reason.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
How does a court ordered million dollar restitution mean a company come out on top?
How does having to pay lawyers mean they didn't have to pay lawyers? Your own statement said they didn't.
How is being told by a court to pay a million dollar restitution constitute standing behind your product?
Why can't you prove the validity of Zmax claims? That would be a better use of your time instead of trying, and failing, to argue law.
They are still making basically the same claims they was before. If the FTC won, why are they doing that still since that was the point of the lawsuit? That is why ZMax is on top. They are still selling their product despite the FTC lawsuit basically just like they was before. Do you not get that?
They paid the lawyers for what they did but they didn't have to pay them AFTER the FTC dropped it. You get it yet? If the FTC had a case it could prove and continued to fight, ZMax would have had to keep paying lawyers to defend their product. That includes the trial, appeals etc etc.
They ALREADY offered to give the money back to anyone not satisfied. Get it? The "restitution" part is just plain stupid. If you are not happy, tell ZMax and get your money back.
What would be better is for you to understand that the FTC dropped it because ZMax proved the product did what it claims it does. If the FTC could prove different, they would have continued the lawsuit.
You know, this is getting pretty silly at this point. Companies get sued and do this sort of thing all the time to avoid the expense of fighting in the legal system. Why a couple people on here can't use common sense and see that and claim they are so smart is just silly. If the FTC won, why is ZMax still making basically the same claims it was before the lawsuit? AS I SAID BEFORE, until you can answer that, you are just whistling in the wind. You are just repeating the same trash which is NOT based on the facts. Basically, the FTC went to court and NOTHING changed. That is NOT winning.
How does a court ordered million dollar restitution mean a company come out on top?
How does having to pay lawyers mean they didn't have to pay lawyers? Your own statement said they didn't.
How is being told by a court to pay a million dollar restitution constitute standing behind your product?
Why can't you prove the validity of Zmax claims? That would be a better use of your time instead of trying, and failing, to argue law.
They are still making basically the same claims they was before. If the FTC won, why are they doing that still since that was the point of the lawsuit? That is why ZMax is on top. They are still selling their product despite the FTC lawsuit basically just like they was before. Do you not get that?
They paid the lawyers for what they did but they didn't have to pay them AFTER the FTC dropped it. You get it yet? If the FTC had a case it could prove and continued to fight, ZMax would have had to keep paying lawyers to defend their product. That includes the trial, appeals etc etc.
They ALREADY offered to give the money back to anyone not satisfied. Get it? The "restitution" part is just plain stupid. If you are not happy, tell ZMax and get your money back.
What would be better is for you to understand that the FTC dropped it because ZMax proved the product did what it claims it does. If the FTC could prove different, they would have continued the lawsuit.
You know, this is getting pretty silly at this point. Companies get sued and do this sort of thing all the time to avoid the expense of fighting in the legal system. Why a couple people on here can't use common sense and see that and claim they are so smart is just silly. If the FTC won, why is ZMax still making basically the same claims it was before the lawsuit? AS I SAID BEFORE, until you can answer that, you are just whistling in the wind. You are just repeating the same trash which is NOT based on the facts. Basically, the FTC went to court and NOTHING changed. That is NOT winning.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...
Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
Apparently some people don't know what a money back guarantee is. If a product doesn't do what it claims and has a money back guarantee, tell them and get your money back. You don't need a court to do that.
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...
Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
Apparently some people don't know what a money back guarantee is. If a product doesn't do what it claims and has a money back guarantee, tell them and get your money back. You don't need a court to do that.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...
Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
And they don't want to either. Zarch et al eogs are in so deep they'd rather keep tilting at windmills with broken lances that realize just how wrong they are,
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...
Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
And they don't want to either. Zarch et al eogs are in so deep they'd rather keep tilting at windmills with broken lances that realize just how wrong they are,
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...
Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
Apparently some people don't know what a money back guarantee is. If a product doesn't do what it claims and has a money back guarantee, tell them and get your money back. You don't need a court to do that.
And yet, the court ordered a million dollar restitution.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...The so called "restitution" offer was there before the FTC filed the lawsuit. You get that?...
Apparently some people don't get an understanding of legal definitions, get how the legal system works, nor get how scientific "cause-and-effect" matters.
Apparently some people don't know what a money back guarantee is. If a product doesn't do what it claims and has a money back guarantee, tell them and get your money back. You don't need a court to do that.
And yet, the court ordered a million dollar restitution.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims now and want to move this up to a mod because you have nothing else to provide? Yep. Sounds like you might be starting to see you are not making your point so you need someone else to step in and give you some help.
Yes, I stand up when needed. When I see a topic such as this, someone using common sense and getting walked on like grass, I have no problem posting and standing with the person I feel is right, which is dave5358 in this case. If that requires the action of a mod, then they can get in touch with me. ZMax is basically claiming the same thing today it was before the FTC lawsuit. That is a win. Period.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims now and want to move this up to a mod because you have nothing else to provide? Yep. Sounds like you might be starting to see you are not making your point so you need someone else to step in and give you some help.
Yes, I stand up when needed. When I see a topic such as this, someone using common sense and getting walked on like grass, I have no problem posting and standing with the person I feel is right, which is dave5358 in this case. If that requires the action of a mod, then they can get in touch with me. ZMax is basically claiming the same thing today it was before the FTC lawsuit. That is a win. Period.
Originally Posted By: Arctic388
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Arctic388
Is there scientific proof PEA cleans injectors?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2510005
What you have provided is not truth.
You have to do better than this. Try discussing how PEA does not work. I recommend starting a new thread to discuss your "claims".
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Arctic388
Is there scientific proof PEA cleans injectors?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2510005
What you have provided is not truth.
You have to do better than this. Try discussing how PEA does not work. I recommend starting a new thread to discuss your "claims".
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?
Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.
Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?
Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?
Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.
Your answers are? Zarch can't explain it. Oil Chen can't. Your turn.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?
Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.
Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?
Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?
Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.
Your answers are? Zarch can't explain it. Oil Chen can't. Your turn.
The makers of Zmax can not make the same claims. Your posts are well written but asked the same questions and have been answered. No question from zmax supports have been answered from a chemical, technical, nor legal standpoint.
Also it will help your cause if you can provide the money back guarantee in writing from zmax.
Also it will help your cause if you can provide the money back guarantee in writing from zmax.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?
Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.
Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?
Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?
Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.
Your answers are? Zarch can't explain it. Oil Chen can't. Your turn.
Apparently the FTC got it explained to them did they not? After all, they stopped fighting in court to stop ZMax from making basically the same claims. As I said before, until you can explain why the FTC still allows ZMax to make basically the same claims, your reply is a waste of time. By all means tho, keep wasting your time. You reply with the same thing, I'll reply with the same thing too.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The makers of Zmax can not make the same claims. Your posts are well written but asked the same questions and have been answered. No question from zmax supports have been answered from a chemical, technical, nor legal standpoint.
Also it will help your cause if you can provide the money back guarantee in writing from zmax.
They are making basically the same claims. Some have not changed at all. See previous replies by dave5358 since he has them listed already.
http://www.zmax.com/contact/
Quoting from the site, emphasis added by me:
Quote:
150,000 Original Mile Guarantee Questions: 888-645-1101 (In the event of vehicle component failure, for refunds under our money back guarantee, please call customer service number 888-645-1101.)
I hadn't looked before but recall seeing it on a TV commercial many times before plus saw it mentioned in a post on this thread a ways back. I've been seeing the commercials for a long time and recall that as far back as I care to recall.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Guys, *I* ran out of popcorn a while ago; this movie needs to end now! Anybody else *not* yet bored with this utterly useless urination contest??
That decision would be up to the mods.
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?
Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.
Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?
Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?
Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.
Your answers are? Zarch can't explain it. Oil Chen can't. Your turn.
Apparently the FTC got it explained to them did they not? After all, they stopped fighting in court to stop ZMax from making basically the same claims. As I said before, until you can explain why the FTC still allows ZMax to make basically the same claims, your reply is a waste of time. By all means tho, keep wasting your time. You reply with the same thing, I'll reply with the same thing too.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The makers of Zmax can not make the same claims. Your posts are well written but asked the same questions and have been answered. No question from zmax supports have been answered from a chemical, technical, nor legal standpoint.
Also it will help your cause if you can provide the money back guarantee in writing from zmax.
They are making basically the same claims. Some have not changed at all. See previous replies by dave5358 since he has them listed already.
http://www.zmax.com/contact/
Quoting from the site, emphasis added by me:
Quote:
150,000 Original Mile Guarantee Questions: 888-645-1101 (In the event of vehicle component failure, for refunds under our money back guarantee, please call customer service number 888-645-1101.)
I hadn't looked before but recall seeing it on a TV commercial many times before plus saw it mentioned in a post on this thread a ways back. I've been seeing the commercials for a long time and recall that as far back as I care to recall.
You have not read the lawsuit and settlement because the same claims zmax advertised before are not the same zmax claims zmax makes after the settlement.
There is nothing in writing about the money back guarantee. Without this your claims mean nothing. Calling an 800 number does not mean money back guarantee.
There is nothing in writing about the money back guarantee. Without this your claims mean nothing. Calling an 800 number does not mean money back guarantee.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
...See previous replies by dave5358 since he has them listed already...
I guess you came into the discussion rather late. You are undoubtedly referring to Dave5358's (we affectionately call him Zarch) spurious and boring repetitions of claims.
Yes we have seen them, have asked for technical and legal data to support the claims, nothing.
Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases, or are you simply responding because you feel a need to argue from emotions?
Quote:
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims now and want to move this up to a mod because you have nothing else to provide? Yep. Sounds like you might be starting to see you are not making your point so you need someone else to step in and give you some help.
Wrong again. Zarch was the first person to broach the subject of shutting down the thread.
Please read prior posts before accusing the wrong people.
...See previous replies by dave5358 since he has them listed already...
I guess you came into the discussion rather late. You are undoubtedly referring to Dave5358's (we affectionately call him Zarch) spurious and boring repetitions of claims.
Yes we have seen them, have asked for technical and legal data to support the claims, nothing.
Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases, or are you simply responding because you feel a need to argue from emotions?
Quote:
So, you guys can't explain why ZMax can still make basically the same claims now and want to move this up to a mod because you have nothing else to provide? Yep. Sounds like you might be starting to see you are not making your point so you need someone else to step in and give you some help.
Wrong again. Zarch was the first person to broach the subject of shutting down the thread.
Please read prior posts before accusing the wrong people.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
You have not read the lawsuit and settlement because the same claims zmax advertised before are not the same zmax claims zmax makes after the settlement.
There is nothing in writing about the money back guarantee. Without this your claims mean nothing. Calling an 800 number does not mean money back guarantee.
I have not read the lawsuit because it is rather mute since it doesn't change the known result. The FTC dropped it and it seems it did so when it realized it was going to lose the whole thing. If it wasn't about to lose, why did it drop it? The mere fact it dropped it shows it couldn't prove its case. If the claims currently being made were not true, the FTC would be back in court. So far, it hasn't. That speaks volumes in my opinion.
Here is a clue, call the number and find out. After all, YOU are the one wanting to know about it. The site says there is a money back guarantee and to call for details so that means there must be one.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...See previous replies by dave5358 since he has them listed already...
I guess you came into the discussion rather late. You are undoubtedly referring to Dave5358's (we affectionately call him Zarch) boring repetitions of claims.
Yes we have seen them, have asked for technical data to support the claims, nothing.
Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases, or are you simply responding because you feel a need to argue from emotions?
Actually, I been following this thread for quite a long while. It was this FTC lawsuit that got me interested in posting. As I posted above, the fact that the FTC dropped the case without any major changes to the ZMax claims pretty much proves the point. If the claims were as bad as some people here claim, which is false or not proven, the FTC would not have dropped the lawsuit and would have took the case to court until it won or there was no appeals left. That's how the Govt does since it has a endless supply of money. It doesn't stop because it is a financially good idea, it stops because it can't prove its case. ZMax likely wanted to stop because it was a better financial move than to keep spending money on lawyers to fight when it got what it wanted when the FTC wanted to drop it. It gets to make basically the same claims it made before which lets it sell its product.
This is really just common sense. The Govt doesn't file a lawsuit and then drop it because it is able to win. Individuals may have to do that because they run out of money to fight but not the Govt.
You have not read the lawsuit and settlement because the same claims zmax advertised before are not the same zmax claims zmax makes after the settlement.
There is nothing in writing about the money back guarantee. Without this your claims mean nothing. Calling an 800 number does not mean money back guarantee.
I have not read the lawsuit because it is rather mute since it doesn't change the known result. The FTC dropped it and it seems it did so when it realized it was going to lose the whole thing. If it wasn't about to lose, why did it drop it? The mere fact it dropped it shows it couldn't prove its case. If the claims currently being made were not true, the FTC would be back in court. So far, it hasn't. That speaks volumes in my opinion.
Here is a clue, call the number and find out. After all, YOU are the one wanting to know about it. The site says there is a money back guarantee and to call for details so that means there must be one.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
...See previous replies by dave5358 since he has them listed already...
I guess you came into the discussion rather late. You are undoubtedly referring to Dave5358's (we affectionately call him Zarch) boring repetitions of claims.
Yes we have seen them, have asked for technical data to support the claims, nothing.
Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases, or are you simply responding because you feel a need to argue from emotions?
Actually, I been following this thread for quite a long while. It was this FTC lawsuit that got me interested in posting. As I posted above, the fact that the FTC dropped the case without any major changes to the ZMax claims pretty much proves the point. If the claims were as bad as some people here claim, which is false or not proven, the FTC would not have dropped the lawsuit and would have took the case to court until it won or there was no appeals left. That's how the Govt does since it has a endless supply of money. It doesn't stop because it is a financially good idea, it stops because it can't prove its case. ZMax likely wanted to stop because it was a better financial move than to keep spending money on lawyers to fight when it got what it wanted when the FTC wanted to drop it. It gets to make basically the same claims it made before which lets it sell its product.
This is really just common sense. The Govt doesn't file a lawsuit and then drop it because it is able to win. Individuals may have to do that because they run out of money to fight but not the Govt.
What they don't claim anymore:
• increases gas mileage
• reduces engine wear
• extends engine life
• lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
• lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
• lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%
• cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%
Yep. Sure looks like they make the same claims pre and post suit.
• increases gas mileage
• reduces engine wear
• extends engine life
• lowers fuel consumption by 8.5%
• lowers wear on valve stems by 66%
• lowers wear on piston skirts by 60%
• cuts carbon build-up on valve stems by 66%
Yep. Sure looks like they make the same claims pre and post suit.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Let the record show I have done that. Let the record also show that Zarch has not presented any technical documentation or rebuttals.
Why should I?
1) I don't use the product, never have used it, have no immediate plans to do so in the future.
2) You have already decided the evidence is "innuendo and pseudo-science". You did this without even seeing it. I genuinely do not believe it is possible for you to change your mind, which would require you to admit you were wrong. Criminy, if Albert Einstein said that Zmax was good stuff, you would dismiss it out of hand as "innuendo and pseudo-science" from a non-technical person, which is exactly what you did with the FAA (without seeing their data).
3) On several occasions, you have stated that if you don't understand something, then that thing cannot possibly be so. What a world view! It would be more productive and informative to talk to a stone.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
...doesn't understand technical data, or is ignoring the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.
The data you presented? Do you mean the 2 2-pack bottles of Zmax you bought, but did not use? That you may have done some research on, but couldn't remember? That you could somehow form an opinion on the product without ever using it?
Or, do you mean the white paper thing about liquid molecules and iron? Please forgive me, but the engines I've seen have aluminum pistons. I've never seen an automobile piston made of iron. Iron pistons went out with steam engines and for good reason. The weight of the piston and stress on the connecting rod is the limiting factor in engine design, which is why Ferraris have flat-12's or v-12's rather than larger bore 6's or V-8's.
Iron pistons? You are nuts.
Let the record show I have done that. Let the record also show that Zarch has not presented any technical documentation or rebuttals.
Why should I?
1) I don't use the product, never have used it, have no immediate plans to do so in the future.
2) You have already decided the evidence is "innuendo and pseudo-science". You did this without even seeing it. I genuinely do not believe it is possible for you to change your mind, which would require you to admit you were wrong. Criminy, if Albert Einstein said that Zmax was good stuff, you would dismiss it out of hand as "innuendo and pseudo-science" from a non-technical person, which is exactly what you did with the FAA (without seeing their data).
3) On several occasions, you have stated that if you don't understand something, then that thing cannot possibly be so. What a world view! It would be more productive and informative to talk to a stone.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
...doesn't understand technical data, or is ignoring the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.
The data you presented? Do you mean the 2 2-pack bottles of Zmax you bought, but did not use? That you may have done some research on, but couldn't remember? That you could somehow form an opinion on the product without ever using it?
Or, do you mean the white paper thing about liquid molecules and iron? Please forgive me, but the engines I've seen have aluminum pistons. I've never seen an automobile piston made of iron. Iron pistons went out with steam engines and for good reason. The weight of the piston and stress on the connecting rod is the limiting factor in engine design, which is why Ferraris have flat-12's or v-12's rather than larger bore 6's or V-8's.
Iron pistons? You are nuts.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
rdaleck: ...Actually, I been following this thread for quite a long while. It was this FTC lawsuit that got me interested in posting...
But you stated you had not read the Lawsuit.
Quote:
rdalek: ...I have not read the lawsuit because...
Quote:
Molakule: ...Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases,...
I will take that as a no.
rdaleck: ...Actually, I been following this thread for quite a long while. It was this FTC lawsuit that got me interested in posting...
But you stated you had not read the Lawsuit.
Quote:
rdalek: ...I have not read the lawsuit because...
Quote:
Molakule: ...Do have something new to add in terms of supporting technical data or defining court cases,...
I will take that as a no.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
What they don't claim anymore:
Rather than misstate the outcome of the FTC matter, which is clearly spelled out in the letters of agreement included with the Court's order, why not share with us your experience with Zmax? How did it perform or not? If it did not live up to your expectations, why or why not?
What they don't claim anymore:
Rather than misstate the outcome of the FTC matter, which is clearly spelled out in the letters of agreement included with the Court's order, why not share with us your experience with Zmax? How did it perform or not? If it did not live up to your expectations, why or why not?
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
On several occasions, you have stated that if you don't understand something, then that thing cannot possibly be so. What a world view! It would be more productive and informative to talk to a stone.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
...doesn't understand technical data, or is ignoring the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.
The data you presented? Do you mean the 2 2-pack bottles of Zmax you bought, but did not use? That you may have done some research on, but couldn't remember? That you could somehow form an opinion on the product without ever using it?
I really expected more from you Zarch, but since you have no technical or legal basis for your arguments, you now resort to inuendos, out of context statements, misrepresentation, and a complete "non-understanding" and basic comprehension of statements made by orhers.
Quote:
Again:
It is apparent Zarch has no understanding as to how you equate scientific data to actual technical claims, so he is now going off in left field again to impune racing in general and those people who are involved in racing.
That is a mark of arrogance [and ignorance].
What a guy!
On several occasions, you have stated that if you don't understand something, then that thing cannot possibly be so. What a world view! It would be more productive and informative to talk to a stone.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
...doesn't understand technical data, or is ignoring the data I presented, or both (most likely scenario), because it doesn't fit his distorted paradigm.
The data you presented? Do you mean the 2 2-pack bottles of Zmax you bought, but did not use? That you may have done some research on, but couldn't remember? That you could somehow form an opinion on the product without ever using it?
I really expected more from you Zarch, but since you have no technical or legal basis for your arguments, you now resort to inuendos, out of context statements, misrepresentation, and a complete "non-understanding" and basic comprehension of statements made by orhers.
Quote:
Again:
It is apparent Zarch has no understanding as to how you equate scientific data to actual technical claims, so he is now going off in left field again to impune racing in general and those people who are involved in racing.
That is a mark of arrogance [and ignorance].
What a guy!
- Status
