Russel's teapot much ?
The burden of proof is on you. He doesn't have to provide proof that oil change shops aren't going to face the wrath of a customer or two - you have to provide proof that they will face that wrath, as you put the assumption that VRP is not offered there because it's higher risk.
- You assign some inherent property of VRP damaging engines (or at least - being MORE damaging, as opposed to any other new oil they release). Fair enough - maybe it does. But it's not proven. Yet you use that property as a categorical argument.
- You assign some imaginary ease on the process of suing a Valvoline shop, as opposed to the process of suing Valvoline itself, or suing any store that sells VRP. How so, and why so ?
If anyone ends up thinking that VRP damaged their engine - they'll sue Valvoline one way or the other. They'll sue Valvoline, the retailer, the amazon delivery guy and the guy's cat. If you obtain proof that your engine was damaged by VRP - will you go file a lawsuit, then suddenly remember that you didn't get it at a Valvoline oil change shop, curse and call it a day ?
So the only basis for any such theory is the current unavailability of VRP at Valvoline oil shops. With a lot of wishful thinking one could deduct from this that:
- Valvoline knows something about VRP and doesn't allow Valvoline shops to sell it to avoid trouble.
- Valvoline shops know something about VRP and don't allow Valvoline to sell them VRP, to avoid trouble.
Nice theory, except it blows to pieces with the mention above that it flies off the shelves in whatever Valvoline shop that was mentioned. Editing my post as for some reason I thought the user is in Canada, but on re-read, I don't see it mentioned anywhere. So some info might be useful on where that Valvoline oil changing place is.
I'm not stating what damages engines and what doesn't, one way or the other. Just that if your arguments and the ones you're dismissing had to tractorpull each other you might get surprised...