Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[dave1251]

I feel like I am in "Dude Where's My Car"

Lost money "And then?", Lost privileges "And then?", Agreed to lose money and privileges "And then?", Companies do not agree to lose if no wrongdoing was conducted "And then?".

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses and dismiss all the engineering reports with which he disagrees (but has not read) as 'innuendo and pseudo-science'.


And yet, you have not come forth with one iota of technical evidence to support your claim.

Show us the engineering reports and test data you so adamamantly know to exist and then we can examine them line by line.

Quote:
I feel like I am in "Dude Where's My Car"


More like the comedy skit, "Who's on First?"

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Take my simple algebraic equations from the White Paper and using aluminum or silicon-aluminum alloys, use the cubical lattice structure of those alloys (available on Wiki) and go through the same calculations.

Then report back here the results. Can you do that for us?

Please tell us from what metal piston rings are constructed? Can you do that for us?



So, Zarch, how many hours or days do you need to respond to the above questions?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
How many times does the FTC (or any government agency) back off a case they think they can win?


The FTC? A plethora the function of the FTC is To prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers; to enhance informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process;.

The FTC is not criminal law enforcement agency.

Having the defendant agree to pay restitution, pay the court, and drop unsubstantiated marketing claims is not a win?

I have a question for you. Do you enjoy attempting to ice skate uphill?

 

[Trajan]

How can these "engineering reports" be dismissed when Zarch has yet to produce them?

Claiming they exist does not mean that they do.

It's synlube all over again. The defenders do everything but *prove* that the claims are valid. Smokescreens. Misdirection. Baiting.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mercy lock?


That is desperation. No one can answer the question so just lock the thread. Yep. That's the only way this can be settled it would seem. Some folks just can't or won't use common sense.


So when will you and Zarch start using it? A mercy lock would be only to stop the beating you guys are taking.


The only one getting a beating here is you and a couple others still claiming the same stuff even tho common sense and a court settlement shows you are wrong and have no facts left to argue.

Once again, if you want to keep posting the same worthless posts, I'll just keep asking you the same thing. Why did the FTC settle the case, allow ZMax to make basically the same claims and drop the case with no action since? If the current claims are not true or proven as you claim, why has the FTC not been back to court and filed a lawsuit? Ignore it all you want. At some point, I'm going to start using the quote and bump feature until you can answer the question.

Are you ready to answer that question in a way that makes sense or are you unable to do so? I think you are clearly unable to get around the fact that the FTC has been shown in court that ZMax's basic claims are valid. If ZMax didn't then the FTC would have went forward with the lawsuit. They also wouldn't have agreed to allow ZMax to use basically the same claims either.

I'm waiting.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.

FAA approval for Avblend meant it contributed to the airworthiness of the overall aircraft (straight out of CFR or MARPA).

You almost have to feel sorry for the FTC. If this matter had proceeded, how were they going to deal with FAA approval of Avblend, since the very Zmax advertising claims the FTC was grousing about were ad claims made about Avblend... and approved by the FAA.

What were they smoking?

 

[dave1251]

When you can make your case I will be waiting.

Agreeing to a court order to lose money is not a sign of legitimate business.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
I feel like I am in "Dude Where's My Car"

Lost money "And then?", Lost privileges "And then?", Agreed to lose money and privileges "And then?", Companies do not agree to lose if no wrongdoing was conducted "And then?".


Didn't have to pay lawyers to continue with the trial and appeals process. Still has the same basic claims as before so nothing lost. They also got approval from the FTC in the settlement for the claims being made which isn't a lot different than before and drives the people that can't accept that here completely nuts it would seem.

Companies agree to settle lawsuits even when they did nothing wrong all the time. Anyone who doesn't know that should watch business shows more often. What is rare, the Govt to settle a lawsuit it knows it can win.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
FAA approval for Avblend meant it contributed to the airworthiness of the overall aircraft (straight out of CFR or MARPA).

You almost have to feel sorry for the FTC. If this matter had proceeded, how were they going to deal with FAA approval of Avblend, since the very Zmax advertising claims the FTC was grousing about were ad claims made about Avblend... and approved by the FAA.

What were they smoking?


Dude Where's My Car?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses and dismiss all the engineering reports with which he disagrees (but has not read) as 'innuendo and pseudo-science'.

And yet, you have not come forth with one iota of technical evidence to support your claim.

You have already dismissed the technical evidence (which you never read) as "innuendo and pseudo-science" presented to a non-technical agency. The FTC reviewed the technical evidence and approved Zmax's proposed advertising claims. The FAA reviewed Avblend's application and concluded that the product contributed to the airworthiness of the overall aircraft.

The problem is not Zmax or Avblend or the technical research behind them. The problem is that you don't like the products and are determined to argue to your singular viewpoint, regardless of fact or data or any other opinion. If Albert Einstein said Zmax was good stuff, you would dismiss that out of hand as innuendo and pseudo-science from a non-technical person (your exact approach to FAA approval). And if Einstein wrote it down, you would still dismiss it... without reading it first.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
How can these "engineering reports" be dismissed when Zarch has yet to produce them?

Claiming they exist does not mean that they do.

It's synlube all over again. The defenders do everything but *prove* that the claims are valid. Smokescreens. Misdirection. Baiting.


I think you typed that wrong. That is what you anti-ZMax guys are doing. You can not explain still how the FTC approved those ZMax claims. You just can not explain that in a common sense way and until you do, I'm going to keep asking.

By the way, you do know that some company info is trade secrets and courts do order those sealed so that the competition doesn't get those? That means, little folks don't get to see them. Based on the FTC dropping the lawsuit tho, it seems they were convinced even if you fail to see it.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
By the way, you do know that some company info is trade secrets and courts do order those sealed so that the competition doesn't get those? That means, little folks don't get to see them. Based on the FTC dropping the lawsuit tho, it seems they were convinced even if you fail to see it.

You're right, Courts frequently seal engineering records and proprietary information. I simply don't know if that happened to this FTC case. Clearly Zmax was relying on a sizable set of engineering reports - for each claim, they specified the specific report(s) which supported that claim. But, are these reports public documents and available?

 

[MolaKule]

Are those violins I hear in the background playing the same old music?

The FTC "allowed" Zmax to make certain claims after the suit and then the FTC stated they would continue to monitor Oil-Chems claims.

Zmax essentially "copped a plea" of nolo contendere to avoid any further actions.

From the Legal Information Institute:

Quote:


NOLO CONTENDERE

Latin for "no contest." In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which he does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment. The plea differs from a guilty plea because it cannot be used against the defendant in another cause of action.

.... In federal cases, the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure allow such pleas, with the court's permission...

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
But, are these reports public documents and available?


They were at the time I commented on them in a line-by-line fashion.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Take my simple algebraic equations from the White Paper and using aluminum or silicon-aluminum alloys, use the cubical lattice structure of those alloys (available on Wiki) and go through the same calculations.

Then report back here the results. Can you do that for us?

Please tell us from what metal piston rings are constructed? Can you do that for us?



So, Zarch, how many hours or days do you need to respond to the above questions?

 

[dave1251]

Are you able to post something of substance to support your claims? I would appreciated it. Good Luck!

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Are those violins I hear in the background playing the same old music?

The FTC "allowed" Zmax to make certain claims after the suit and then the FTC stated they would continue to monitor Oil-Chems claims.

Zmax essentially "copped a plea" of nolo contendere to avoid any further actions.

From the Legal Information Institute:

Quote:


NOLO CONTENDERE

Latin for "no contest." In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which he does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but agrees to accept punishment. The plea differs from a guilty plea because it cannot be used against the defendant in another cause of action.

.... In federal cases, the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure allow such pleas, with the court's permission...




I agree.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
When you can make your case I will be waiting.

Agreeing to a court order to lose money is not a sign of legitimate business.


Did a google search. This is in a different area as far as this being a computer company but still the same point. Lawsuits are settled even when the person/company that is getting sued did nothing wrong but doesn't want to spend the money to prove it. Found this link in one of the first few hits.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201105...se-period.shtml

Quote:
Red Hat's CEO recently made waves in the technology world by stating that "at some point, it's better to settle than fight these things out." The horror! The surprise! But it's not really either of those; it's just plain true.


In case you are not familiar, Redhat is a large business. Companies of all sizes have to chose whether it is cheaper to settle or fight lawsuits. A lot of the time, it is a economic decision. If a company or individual has a money pool big enough to fight then they may do just that if they must. Very few companies/individuals have that tho. When they don't have those resources, they are sometimes forced to settle even if they don't get what they want. In this case tho, ZMax came out with the FTC approval for basically the same claims it made before. It's product survived the lawsuit and they got their basic claims approved by the FTC on top of that.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Are those violins I hear in the background playing the same old music?

The FTC "allowed" Zmax to make certain claims after the suit and then the FTC stated they would continue to monitor Oil-Chems claims.

Zmax essentially "copped a plea" of nolo contendere to avoid any further actions.



If it is, it's your violins. You STILL have NOT answered my question but you made another point for ME. The FTC is monitoring the claims and has not taken any action. That means that the claims are still proven otherwise the FTC would have been back in court. Thanks for making a point for me. You may get it eventually but you are slow. Yep, those violins are yours, not mine.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
At least they got off of the "FAA approval means it is beneficial" nonsense.


Of course the topic would come back to here. Still nothing of substance is posted from the pro zmax side.