Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There goes the name calling again. What's wrong with this guy?
His hostility toward me started after I explained to him the cause behind the TEOST 33C exemption for 0W-16 and 0W-20 (it's the Japanese OEM's' desire to have 600 - 800 ppm moly in these oils)
OK, replying to yourself here is, IMHO, a small demonstration of what results in these exchanges going the way they do and you seemingly oblivious as to why, despite "explaining it" here.
Does it not strike you as odd that your discussions become so controversial, sometimes confrontational, whilst this doesn't seem to happen when other members author similar threads? Shannow has started numerous scientific discussions, as has Molakule, Dave Newton and Doug Hillary, yet they never seem to quite derail in this manner. This isn't because the subject matter is profoundly different, rather, it is the method in which things are approached and how the exchange percolates.
You are obviously quite intelligent and your out of the box thinking on some of this stuff is greatly appreciated, as it gets the rest of us thinking about things we perhaps otherwise wouldn't. But you need to remember that when engaging with people like Shannow for example, that you are among peers, not peons. When you talk down (perhaps unintentionally), pass off legitimate questions and contrary contributions as "strawmen" instead of considering them and generally come off a bit self-righteous, you are going to put people off and set the exchange as one with an offensive rather than collaborative tone. You've noted numerous times that you enjoy civil discourse, and I think most of us share that view, but you need to maintain an environment that is conducive to that, which I am of the opinion that you may not be on the same page as other members as to what that entails. Pushing the BQI as you have been, when the rest of us are obviously not embracing it, since the discussion is far from settled on it, isn't doing you any favours for example. Claiming the base oil makeup of a lubricant where there isn't even an SDS listing the potential base oil contents and instead using your BQI as the determining factor here, again, while it shows you to be keen and excited, turns others off because you've latched onto a concept, self-certified it and are pushing it like a street worker while refusing to allow it to be properly debated, which is the only way, IMHO, that it is going to gain the traction you so desire for it.
I thoroughly enjoy talking to you much of the time. Unfortunately, your previous interactions with Shannow have heavily jaded the tone of any current and future exchanges and thus a lot of what could be exciting and fruitful debate resulting in progress, knowledge transfer and valuable information for the board ends up becoming nothing more than mud slinging, deflection and then the thread dies. Often times, that same theme is picked up again in another thread, only to go down in flames in a similarly spectacular manner. It's a bit tiresome. Your unwillingness to entertain contrary ideas I think is part of the reason your interactions with nap have been so negative. It isn't that you've proven him wrong and he's unwilling to accept that, its the manner in which that whole topic was approached as I recall from reading it. It wasn't just him who was trying to debate it with you either as I remember it.
I'm not saying we all need to like each other and hold hands singing "Kumbaya". I am however saying that we perhaps need to do a little introspection as to how we can better interact here if we want our concepts to be discussed and our exchanges to be a success. I'm far, FAR from perfect in that regard myself, but I believe I have grown in that respect over the years, mellowed it out a bit and tried to be more receptive to contrary points of view and how I approach them. I believe that's made me a better member and I'm kindly asking you to consider doing the same.
