Should I leave a little used oil in? ( DNewton3 )
- Thread starter Linctex
- Start date
- Status
So, if you introduce all fresh oil, the films will be reduced and some wear will occur (bad). Leave the oil and the film will be rebuilt and wear will be reduced (good).
But I do not buy the statement that is must be all or nothing... If you do a 1/2 change, will the film stripping be reduced to 1/2 ?? Or a 1/4 change ... How about just constantly topping up a leaker?
Say I have an old tractor with a front seal leak. I have to add 1 qts for 8 hours run time. In five days, I have added 5 qts to a 3 gallon system. How much film has been lost, and or, re-established?
How quickly do the oils age into not stripping? 40 hours, 80 hours?
There is some useful crossover point where adding some new clean oil will be a benefit to a sump full of old thick oil. What if it's a thinner version? Say SAE 30 into a well used sump of SAE 40... And what about 2-stroke diesels? They've always been oil burners, so they get topped up a LOT, but some go 500,000 miles, or more ...
This chemistry is not straight forward and mixing (topping) is not linear with regard to tribofilms ...
But I do not buy the statement that is must be all or nothing... If you do a 1/2 change, will the film stripping be reduced to 1/2 ?? Or a 1/4 change ... How about just constantly topping up a leaker?
Say I have an old tractor with a front seal leak. I have to add 1 qts for 8 hours run time. In five days, I have added 5 qts to a 3 gallon system. How much film has been lost, and or, re-established?
How quickly do the oils age into not stripping? 40 hours, 80 hours?
There is some useful crossover point where adding some new clean oil will be a benefit to a sump full of old thick oil. What if it's a thinner version? Say SAE 30 into a well used sump of SAE 40... And what about 2-stroke diesels? They've always been oil burners, so they get topped up a LOT, but some go 500,000 miles, or more ...
This chemistry is not straight forward and mixing (topping) is not linear with regard to tribofilms ...
Anyway, if a little old oil is good, then you already have it with any drain from any engine.
As I posted above in a reply to a poster who claimed that a special procedure had to be used to drain some Eurotrash engine, the only way to get all of the oil out of an engine is to tear it down and wipe it clean.
Anyone who's taken an engine apart knows this.
As I posted above in a reply to a poster who claimed that a special procedure had to be used to drain some Eurotrash engine, the only way to get all of the oil out of an engine is to tear it down and wipe it clean.
Anyone who's taken an engine apart knows this.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yes, we disagree with interpretation of the results and the extensions that you draw...
but your earlier statement was that I was refuting the studies themselves...do you still stand by that ?
I didn't make any statement that you refuting the studies.
I asked a QUESTION of you; were you claiming the studies to be misleading, or wrong?
I noted that the study in topic (2007-01-4133) referred to many other similar studies regarding TCB. You are taking exception to my interpretation of this (and presumably the others).
I ASKED this:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In short, multiple SAE studies (not just one) have shown how the TCB is established, and how it goes unaffected by other inputs. Further, it is proven that "fresh" oils degrade the TCB, and that heat/oxidation/duration improve the TCB. They show that the ZDDP has less effect on wear rates, than the TCB film it promotes. All these studies are credited in 2007-01-4133; they are listed in the reference section. Are you saying that all these studies are misleading; that none of them prove what is claimed? There are 22 referenced sources; they are all wrong and you're right?
(bold is my emphasis now)
Nowhere did I say that you said they were wrong. I ASKED if you thought they were wrong; an inference I took from your constant objections.
You never confirmed or denied the question because you never answered it.
So let me be more specific and more direct ...
You've already stated what you think the study does not support, but you've never stated WHY you disagree. You keep touting an objection, but never give any basis as to why you refute why I believe the study is valid and relevant to my data.
Two questions:
- What do you believe IS proven in the SAE study, and how would it be relevant to anything we care about here? (don't tell me what you think it does not prove; tell me what you believe it does prove)
- Why do you believe the SAE info is not supportive of my independent data? (why are the study claims not relevant to my real world data?)
My position is this:
* The SAE study we discuss (and the incorporation of info from others referenced) indicates that immediately after an OCI, the TCB is significantly degraded. Then, as the OCI lengthens, the TCB matures with the OCI, the wear rates go down. (Essentially the wear rates are affected by the manipulation of the TCB). It's stated as such so very clearly in the study. The study ALSO goes on to discuss how it is proven (in this study and previous others) that VIS is NOT in correlation with wear trends, and therefore cannot explain the wear reduction; same goes for TBN/TAN. This study was the first to evaluate TCB as multiple points along different OCI durations, where previous studies only looks at the end of OCIs. But the conclusions were similar; TCB is the actor that most controls wear rates. This study, in particular, specifically states that wear trends ARE affected by the TCB and ARE NOT affected by the Vis (or by association, the TAN). In short, multiple studies have shown that TCB maturity affects wear data in a desirable manner, more so that other would-be actors.
* My UOA data clearly shows, undeniably, that as OCIs lengthen, the wear rates go down. The data in my totally independent study, which focuses on wear data trends, completely coincides with the data trends in the Ford/Conoco study. It is, without a rational, sane objection, completely accurate to state that longer OCIs return lower wear rates. 15,000 UOAs cannot be wrong. Wear is elevated at the front end of an OCI, and drops substantially as the OCI matures past 3k miles. The wear will then settle to a very low rate, and stabilize. That is EXACTLY the same phenomenon that study 2007-01-4133 noted.
So tell me, please, just where did they, or I, or both they and I, go off course? BE SPECIFIC. Don't just object; give a sane and rational explanation as to why you believe the study does not prove what it claims, and why my data is not an real-world echo of their lab experiment.
IOW, there are two dots; why do you believe it is wrong to connect them?
Yes, we disagree with interpretation of the results and the extensions that you draw...
but your earlier statement was that I was refuting the studies themselves...do you still stand by that ?
I didn't make any statement that you refuting the studies.
I asked a QUESTION of you; were you claiming the studies to be misleading, or wrong?
I noted that the study in topic (2007-01-4133) referred to many other similar studies regarding TCB. You are taking exception to my interpretation of this (and presumably the others).
I ASKED this:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In short, multiple SAE studies (not just one) have shown how the TCB is established, and how it goes unaffected by other inputs. Further, it is proven that "fresh" oils degrade the TCB, and that heat/oxidation/duration improve the TCB. They show that the ZDDP has less effect on wear rates, than the TCB film it promotes. All these studies are credited in 2007-01-4133; they are listed in the reference section. Are you saying that all these studies are misleading; that none of them prove what is claimed? There are 22 referenced sources; they are all wrong and you're right?
(bold is my emphasis now)
Nowhere did I say that you said they were wrong. I ASKED if you thought they were wrong; an inference I took from your constant objections.
You never confirmed or denied the question because you never answered it.
So let me be more specific and more direct ...
You've already stated what you think the study does not support, but you've never stated WHY you disagree. You keep touting an objection, but never give any basis as to why you refute why I believe the study is valid and relevant to my data.
Two questions:
- What do you believe IS proven in the SAE study, and how would it be relevant to anything we care about here? (don't tell me what you think it does not prove; tell me what you believe it does prove)
- Why do you believe the SAE info is not supportive of my independent data? (why are the study claims not relevant to my real world data?)
My position is this:
* The SAE study we discuss (and the incorporation of info from others referenced) indicates that immediately after an OCI, the TCB is significantly degraded. Then, as the OCI lengthens, the TCB matures with the OCI, the wear rates go down. (Essentially the wear rates are affected by the manipulation of the TCB). It's stated as such so very clearly in the study. The study ALSO goes on to discuss how it is proven (in this study and previous others) that VIS is NOT in correlation with wear trends, and therefore cannot explain the wear reduction; same goes for TBN/TAN. This study was the first to evaluate TCB as multiple points along different OCI durations, where previous studies only looks at the end of OCIs. But the conclusions were similar; TCB is the actor that most controls wear rates. This study, in particular, specifically states that wear trends ARE affected by the TCB and ARE NOT affected by the Vis (or by association, the TAN). In short, multiple studies have shown that TCB maturity affects wear data in a desirable manner, more so that other would-be actors.
* My UOA data clearly shows, undeniably, that as OCIs lengthen, the wear rates go down. The data in my totally independent study, which focuses on wear data trends, completely coincides with the data trends in the Ford/Conoco study. It is, without a rational, sane objection, completely accurate to state that longer OCIs return lower wear rates. 15,000 UOAs cannot be wrong. Wear is elevated at the front end of an OCI, and drops substantially as the OCI matures past 3k miles. The wear will then settle to a very low rate, and stabilize. That is EXACTLY the same phenomenon that study 2007-01-4133 noted.
So tell me, please, just where did they, or I, or both they and I, go off course? BE SPECIFIC. Don't just object; give a sane and rational explanation as to why you believe the study does not prove what it claims, and why my data is not an real-world echo of their lab experiment.
IOW, there are two dots; why do you believe it is wrong to connect them?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
So tell me, please, just where did they, or I, or both they and I, go off course? BE SPECIFIC. Don't just object; give a sane and rational explanation as to why you believe the study does not prove what it claims, and why my data is not an real-world echo of their lab experiment.
Don't be precious in claiming that I've never stated what my opinion is, and only object...
The study claims what it claims...tribofilms are established earlier and thicker with used oil...I've never objected to what the study has actually claimed..when you look at what has to happen to establish a tribofilm, of course partially degraded oil makes an earlier and thicker tribofilm.
As such I have NEVER suggested that the paper writers have "gone wrong"...unless you want to find a specific quote, as you are continually making the assertion.
I've only objected to your extension of those claims to enforce your confirmational bias, and yes, connecting two dots can well be unfounded.
My objection, as always, and you've been there is the extension that you draw and the emphatic statements that you make regarding your view of what the papers say...without them actually stating it.
You've claimed in the past that I've not read them, and don't know...I have them have read them, and they don't end up at YOUR conclusions...
but strawman away, as is your will.
So tell me, please, just where did they, or I, or both they and I, go off course? BE SPECIFIC. Don't just object; give a sane and rational explanation as to why you believe the study does not prove what it claims, and why my data is not an real-world echo of their lab experiment.
Don't be precious in claiming that I've never stated what my opinion is, and only object...
The study claims what it claims...tribofilms are established earlier and thicker with used oil...I've never objected to what the study has actually claimed..when you look at what has to happen to establish a tribofilm, of course partially degraded oil makes an earlier and thicker tribofilm.
As such I have NEVER suggested that the paper writers have "gone wrong"...unless you want to find a specific quote, as you are continually making the assertion.
I've only objected to your extension of those claims to enforce your confirmational bias, and yes, connecting two dots can well be unfounded.
My objection, as always, and you've been there is the extension that you draw and the emphatic statements that you make regarding your view of what the papers say...without them actually stating it.
You've claimed in the past that I've not read them, and don't know...I have them have read them, and they don't end up at YOUR conclusions...
but strawman away, as is your will.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4147917/Re:_How_Realistic_Is_This_Theo#Post4147917
I've read that thread; participated in it.
I love how folks seem to forget how well I describe and account for stuff.
The general objection that Ed has is the thinks I don't take into account a residual effect. Hey, Ed - the clue phone is ringing ... it's for you. READ BELOW ...
Allow me to quote myself from the article I wrote: (I will underline for emphasis here)
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
"It is in fact true to say that when you change oil frequently the UOA will exhibit a higher Fe wear metal count. There are two reasonable explanations to this phenomenon of elevated wear metals shortly after an OCI; residual oil and tribo-chemical interaction. When you change oil, no matter how much you “drip-drip-drip” the oil into the catch basin, there is always a moderate amount left in the engine. Ryan Stark of Blackstone estimates up to 20% of the old oil remains, more or less, depending upon the unique traits of each piece of equipment. So, when you begin your new OCI, you really are not starting at zero ppm. Additionally, there is indication that wear is elevated after each OCI because of chemical reactions of fresh additive packages. This claim is supported via an SAE study done by Ford and Conoco (ref #1) that surmised this very phenomenon, and additionally refers to a former study of the same conclusion predating it.
So, the reality is that we are seeing a combination of two phenomenon; one being the residual oil contribution and the other the chemical reactions. The elevated readings towards the beginning of an OCI are typically (for most engines) less than one point, representing tenths of change. I cannot deduce from this macro-data set what portion of wear is due to residual oil and what portion is due to chemical action, but to be honest it really does not matter, because it’s impossible to separate the two phenomena in real life, and they act together to produce a single result. Wear metals are factually elevated after an OCI due to chemistry and artificially inflated by residual metals; we cannot elude this truth."
Gosh - it seems to me that I clearly, articulately, fairly and openly acknowledged BOTH contributors. But hey, maybe I was too subtle?
What I claim is true:
- you cannot easily (if at all) knowingly separate the two contributors
- it does not matter, because the overall effect is what we have to deal with in reality
- my data proves two things to be true; shorter OCIs do not lower wear rates, whereas longer OCIs do lower wear rates
- the SAE study is a fair explanation as to why the TCB portion exists
Conveniently many folks forget what they read, and/or try to infer I missed something that I already discussed and explained.
I never claimed that TCB was a sole reason for the wear rate changes, any more than I never claimed that the fresh OCI fully strips the TCB down to "virgin metal" (as you implied that I stated, but I never actually made any claim of the sort). I frequently quoted the study, so that I would remove my influence and stick to the interpretation of the study's authors. When they said "remove", that is what I quoted. Don't blame me when all I was doing was directly quoting the origin of the statement.
I cannot stop you and others from either misinterpreting my information, nor maligning it (by error or intent).
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4147917/Re:_How_Realistic_Is_This_Theo#Post4147917
I've read that thread; participated in it.
I love how folks seem to forget how well I describe and account for stuff.
The general objection that Ed has is the thinks I don't take into account a residual effect. Hey, Ed - the clue phone is ringing ... it's for you. READ BELOW ...
Allow me to quote myself from the article I wrote: (I will underline for emphasis here)
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
"It is in fact true to say that when you change oil frequently the UOA will exhibit a higher Fe wear metal count. There are two reasonable explanations to this phenomenon of elevated wear metals shortly after an OCI; residual oil and tribo-chemical interaction. When you change oil, no matter how much you “drip-drip-drip” the oil into the catch basin, there is always a moderate amount left in the engine. Ryan Stark of Blackstone estimates up to 20% of the old oil remains, more or less, depending upon the unique traits of each piece of equipment. So, when you begin your new OCI, you really are not starting at zero ppm. Additionally, there is indication that wear is elevated after each OCI because of chemical reactions of fresh additive packages. This claim is supported via an SAE study done by Ford and Conoco (ref #1) that surmised this very phenomenon, and additionally refers to a former study of the same conclusion predating it.
So, the reality is that we are seeing a combination of two phenomenon; one being the residual oil contribution and the other the chemical reactions. The elevated readings towards the beginning of an OCI are typically (for most engines) less than one point, representing tenths of change. I cannot deduce from this macro-data set what portion of wear is due to residual oil and what portion is due to chemical action, but to be honest it really does not matter, because it’s impossible to separate the two phenomena in real life, and they act together to produce a single result. Wear metals are factually elevated after an OCI due to chemistry and artificially inflated by residual metals; we cannot elude this truth."
Gosh - it seems to me that I clearly, articulately, fairly and openly acknowledged BOTH contributors. But hey, maybe I was too subtle?
What I claim is true:
- you cannot easily (if at all) knowingly separate the two contributors
- it does not matter, because the overall effect is what we have to deal with in reality
- my data proves two things to be true; shorter OCIs do not lower wear rates, whereas longer OCIs do lower wear rates
- the SAE study is a fair explanation as to why the TCB portion exists
Conveniently many folks forget what they read, and/or try to infer I missed something that I already discussed and explained.
I never claimed that TCB was a sole reason for the wear rate changes, any more than I never claimed that the fresh OCI fully strips the TCB down to "virgin metal" (as you implied that I stated, but I never actually made any claim of the sort). I frequently quoted the study, so that I would remove my influence and stick to the interpretation of the study's authors. When they said "remove", that is what I quoted. Don't blame me when all I was doing was directly quoting the origin of the statement.
I cannot stop you and others from either misinterpreting my information, nor maligning it (by error or intent).
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I cannot stop you and others from either misinterpreting my information, nor maligning it (by error or intent).
Do you deny that you replied derogatorily to me, then deleted it ????
edit...because posting, then deleting...IS intent...
I cannot stop you and others from either misinterpreting my information, nor maligning it (by error or intent).
Do you deny that you replied derogatorily to me, then deleted it ????
edit...because posting, then deleting...IS intent...
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
re your last post there dnewton...what sort of mod stunt was THAT that you pulled ???
Something about sumarily dismissed, not defined well...then white screen and you post is gone...
It was not a stunt. It was the due to the delay of you and I posting essentially at the same time.
I took objection to a post you made, but by the time I hit "submit", I saw updated info you had put in.
I thought it was rude of me to state something that was invalid, based on changes that were "real time" in the thread.
So I deleted the post as quickly as possible.
It was not a trick; it was a correction to something I had done.
If you find that so objectionable, then feel free to leave and never return. I won't be offended.
re your last post there dnewton...what sort of mod stunt was THAT that you pulled ???
Something about sumarily dismissed, not defined well...then white screen and you post is gone...
It was not a stunt. It was the due to the delay of you and I posting essentially at the same time.
I took objection to a post you made, but by the time I hit "submit", I saw updated info you had put in.
I thought it was rude of me to state something that was invalid, based on changes that were "real time" in the thread.
So I deleted the post as quickly as possible.
It was not a trick; it was a correction to something I had done.
If you find that so objectionable, then feel free to leave and never return. I won't be offended.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Shannow
re your last post there dnewton...what sort of mod stunt was THAT that you pulled ???
Something about sumarily dismissed, not defined well...then white screen and you post is gone...
It was not a stunt. It was the due to the delay of you and I posting essentially at the same time.
I took objection to a post you made, but by the time I hit "submit", I saw updated info you had put in.
I thought it was rude of me to state something that was invalid, based on changes that were "real time" in the thread.
So I deleted the post as quickly as possible.
It was not a trick; it was a correction to something I had done.
If you find that so objectionable, then feel free to leave and never return. I won't be offended.
Yet that same ability to make a post "disappear" is not afforded to the rest of the members who can't delete a post.
i.e. "special mod powers"
Originally Posted By: Shannow
re your last post there dnewton...what sort of mod stunt was THAT that you pulled ???
Something about sumarily dismissed, not defined well...then white screen and you post is gone...
It was not a stunt. It was the due to the delay of you and I posting essentially at the same time.
I took objection to a post you made, but by the time I hit "submit", I saw updated info you had put in.
I thought it was rude of me to state something that was invalid, based on changes that were "real time" in the thread.
So I deleted the post as quickly as possible.
It was not a trick; it was a correction to something I had done.
If you find that so objectionable, then feel free to leave and never return. I won't be offended.
Yet that same ability to make a post "disappear" is not afforded to the rest of the members who can't delete a post.
i.e. "special mod powers"
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Everyone has known for ages that you fiddle the edit time and make stuff appear and disappear as you want, and that just proved it !!!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If that's the way that the board works, I think I'm probably done...
RIP Tony.
Everyone here has the ability to edit their posts for a variety of reasons. This is not unique to Mods. Mods have an unlimited time, whereas normal members have (IIRC) 30 minutes.
You have the very same "Edit" button that I do. That is NOT any manner of special privilege.
I don't "fiddle" with stuff to mislead people. I do edit my posts (as anyone is allowed to do) to correct for content, change spelling, grammer, insert/delete, etc.
I have never, ever changed a post to alter someone else's statements, unless they specifically asked me to do so.
I have edited (or deleted) posts according to the BITOG rules.
I edited my own post, because the rules allow me to, just as they allow you to do.
I misunderstood something I read of your posts, made a reply and thought it wrong, and then retracted it immediately by deleting it.
What in the world is wrong with that?
Everyone has known for ages that you fiddle the edit time and make stuff appear and disappear as you want, and that just proved it !!!
Originally Posted By: Shannow
If that's the way that the board works, I think I'm probably done...
RIP Tony.
Everyone here has the ability to edit their posts for a variety of reasons. This is not unique to Mods. Mods have an unlimited time, whereas normal members have (IIRC) 30 minutes.
You have the very same "Edit" button that I do. That is NOT any manner of special privilege.
I don't "fiddle" with stuff to mislead people. I do edit my posts (as anyone is allowed to do) to correct for content, change spelling, grammer, insert/delete, etc.
I have never, ever changed a post to alter someone else's statements, unless they specifically asked me to do so.
I have edited (or deleted) posts according to the BITOG rules.
I edited my own post, because the rules allow me to, just as they allow you to do.
I misunderstood something I read of your posts, made a reply and thought it wrong, and then retracted it immediately by deleting it.
What in the world is wrong with that?
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yet that same ability to make a post "disappear" is not afforded to the rest of the members who can't delete a post.
i.e. "special mod powers"
You, sir, I think you have the EXACT same ability as a mod to delete a post.
Hint: use the "Edit" button. Once the frame opens, there is a "delete post" button.
Use it.
Ta-Da!
You, (and everyone else) have the same "special mod powers" (a phrase I take from your post). You just do not have the ability to do so for others, and are time restricted.
The action I took was within seconds of posting, reading and deleting.
You can do the EXACT same thing.
The problem is that we are having a near-real-time conversation that is "blind" until posted and read. While I'm typing, I cannot "hear" what you have to say.
Or do you not get that?
If you think I have violated the rules here, somehow abused my Mod privileges, than I encourage you to report the thread and let someone else look it over.
I completely disagree with your assessment of my data and the SAE study. But that is COMPLETELY a side conversation from what's going on now. I take offense to the fact that you believe I somehow am abusing my Mod powers.
I posted as a contributing member, as do all. I deleted my post after reading what you said, because of multiple statements interspersed in time delay. That is a phenomenon that ALL members might experience, and ALL members have the ability to add/edit/delete.
Yet that same ability to make a post "disappear" is not afforded to the rest of the members who can't delete a post.
i.e. "special mod powers"
You, sir, I think you have the EXACT same ability as a mod to delete a post.
Hint: use the "Edit" button. Once the frame opens, there is a "delete post" button.
Use it.
Ta-Da!
You, (and everyone else) have the same "special mod powers" (a phrase I take from your post). You just do not have the ability to do so for others, and are time restricted.
The action I took was within seconds of posting, reading and deleting.
You can do the EXACT same thing.
The problem is that we are having a near-real-time conversation that is "blind" until posted and read. While I'm typing, I cannot "hear" what you have to say.
Or do you not get that?
If you think I have violated the rules here, somehow abused my Mod privileges, than I encourage you to report the thread and let someone else look it over.
I completely disagree with your assessment of my data and the SAE study. But that is COMPLETELY a side conversation from what's going on now. I take offense to the fact that you believe I somehow am abusing my Mod powers.
I posted as a contributing member, as do all. I deleted my post after reading what you said, because of multiple statements interspersed in time delay. That is a phenomenon that ALL members might experience, and ALL members have the ability to add/edit/delete.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
edit .... This post may no longer be deleted.
Interesting. I may be in error. I know it used to work; I am not the admin. I will check with Wayne.
However, what you can do is "edit" and then delete the text.
Same destination using two roads.
edit .... This post may no longer be deleted.
Interesting. I may be in error. I know it used to work; I am not the admin. I will check with Wayne.
However, what you can do is "edit" and then delete the text.
Same destination using two roads.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yet that same ability to make a post "disappear" is not afforded to the rest of the members who can't delete a post.
i.e. "special mod powers"
You, sir, I think you have the EXACT same ability as a mod to delete a post.
Hint: use the "Edit" button. Once the frame opens, there is a "delete post" button.
Use it.
Ta-Da!
That's exactly what I did, and your condescension is greatly appreciated.
I posted what I was met with when I went to delete...
and the second that I posted this, I hit edit and delte, and got exactly the same message...TOOL
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yet that same ability to make a post "disappear" is not afforded to the rest of the members who can't delete a post.
i.e. "special mod powers"
You, sir, I think you have the EXACT same ability as a mod to delete a post.
Hint: use the "Edit" button. Once the frame opens, there is a "delete post" button.
Use it.
Ta-Da!
That's exactly what I did, and your condescension is greatly appreciated.
I posted what I was met with when I went to delete...
and the second that I posted this, I hit edit and delte, and got exactly the same message...TOOL
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
