Quote:
Thanks for the Jack McCoy reference, btw. I think that's a fair characterization. I got a chuckle out of it.
I had hoped it would. I tend to inject some humor into most of my dialog. (raised guilty hand)
Quote:
Please forgive my loquatiousness - my background is in English and computer science so I am naturally longwinded and analytical.
Oh, no justification needed. I have no such background and I'm frequently long winded. My critical thinking quotient was acquired by random accident.
I have done/do a fair amount of home grown testing here on BITOG. I had the great fortune to have a few REALLY SMART members take a kinder approach to my tinkerings and, in as warm and fuzzy a manner they know how, spank the heck out of me. You soon learn to explode all the bombs before others find them. It's actually a common debate technique. The commonly flawed debate technique is to find flaw in one aspect of your opponents argument and expound upon it to imply that the total argument is flawed. The way you effectively handle a flaw is to neutralize it by immediately conceding it and moving on. No bomb to explode. The sail is denied its wind...
Frank has had plenty of before and after images. Before and after compression tests ...blah-blah. What Frank does is attempt to bring "new" into the picture to keep the interest (views) piqued and peaked...so to speak. It's not always "world class" or "conclusive" ..but presented FWIW. But it would be a bit boring to have "See Arron's test" repeatedly (I think
THIS is it). Then you would have someone saying "Is that all that there is?" (cue music, Is that all there is, my friends?).
So, let's say that Frank takes a poll and solicits suggestions for providing some validation that doesn't include employing some OEM manufacturer's research team. He finds those that are walking around with fairly big sticks in their own regard and they set up a protocol with all the data that they feel is relevant and go about their little ditty. They get favorable results in what they attempted ..reported all the before and after ..and still get hammered for lack some collegian environment.
Now if I've still got your attention, what it sorta means ..is that for every objector ..you would have to construct another "plug the hole" scenario JUST FOR THEM ..and there's always more to come ..while the vast favorable experience base is, for the most part, ignored. That's why I really lacked plausible explanation for dargo ..who appears to say that he's on the brink of buying gallons ..but chooses instead to sit back ..for months .. in vacillating demeanor ... about the product. Yes, it works ..so do others ..I'm prepared to buy gallons ..but I don't know...I've used it with mixed results. While all he has to do is buy a fraction of the gallons ..use it ..if he's not satisfied ..ask for his money back. "I didn't see value in it in my usage" ..done deal
Just to explain my dwelling on this here. I did my own testing out of curiosity. I approached Frank to see if he'd pitch in with some product support (discount) if I could find someone to provide the guinea pigs. He agreed and I managed to find a few people that fit my criteria for the test. One was Fueltankerman (Dan) ..who had practiced sensible oil changes, had a car with advanced mileage that he'd owned for many years, and (most importantly) had never believed in products like Auto-Rx (not that he had some aversion to them, but just never saw the value). The other was none other than Dave (dnewton3) who had a perfectly clean engine, but found two cylinders low in compression due to an overheat where a sand core plug (freeze plug) had failed that was between them (speculation - most plausible origin). He doubted that it could be remedied ..but agreed to try it anyway. Long story short, he de-coked those two pistons and restored nearly all the lost compression. He was considering pulling the head to fix it up upon discovery.
Naturally these "what happens if you do this" type activities initiated a conversational relationship with Frank that is ongoing to this day. We exchange dialog routinely. While I have no dog in the fight, so to speak, I surely have a different view then many of you have.
What I think is sorta a .......hmmm.. a paradox (or whatever) is that you can't pull the same rabbit out of the hat because the presentation loses it's appeal. ..nor can you always find a new rabbit to pull out of the same hat ..which is the same deal. Hence you pull what you have and present it FWIW. One cannot sit upon their laurels ...
I can sorta relate to Frank's predicament in that I often find myself in a position where I can conceptually see something, but I'm frustrated by not having the cerebral mojo to articulate it. That is, I see where I need to be ..but I can't get there from here. I must say too ..that I often get hammered for the flaws in what I suggest. What some people appear to see as something to topple, I'm often just standing there saying "can you see what I see?" in my half idiot savant view. That is, "Hey, I got you this far, can you get this dog to hunt?"
