Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic
I am NOT reading that.
- You are saying that this should NOT be tested.
- Not even in engines that are about to be rebuilt anyway, where the tester has nothing to lose.
- That you don't need to test it for yourself as you know it wont work, skipping the need for proof it doesn't work, while insisting on proof that it does.
Trying to stop people from testing this in engines that are about to be rebuilt anyway, where they have nothing to lose, is the kind of behavior on expects from a paid troll.
Who else would try stop DIY research based on the exceptionally good results from both scientific research and the anecdotal reports from early adopters??
So this seems to be what's happening here:
And I'm not the one getting paid!  (in the above video)
Then; you have stopped just short of calling the DOE's Argonne National Labs, numerous other research institutes and ME a liar or/and delusional.
You have honed being rude and insulting to the point just before being bannable to such a fine art that one wonders if you don't get help from professionals.
Therefore, like many others on this forum who haven't left outright, I consider you and your comments not worth the time it takes to skip past them. |
1) Wow, didn't realize you were psychic! ( knowing what one has written without reading it ).
2) If you'll read it, by all logic, you'll know exactly what I've said.
3) You're still in the same intellectual cul de' sac as 28-months ago precisely because you're not reading my rebuttals and data entries.
4) My ongoing knowledge of tribology provides me with a very low confidence , in advance, that there'd be the magnitude difference in performance as is being attributed to boric acid. And you'd know why if you'd followed my contributions.
5) I've studied your 'evidence', and I've yet to see any 'evidence', based upon the 'context' under which quanta were published, that support your argument. Again, ' It's not what you know, it's what you think you know, that just ain't so.'
6) Every member and guest visiting this thread is free to study all the available data and come to their own conclusions. I'm just a messenger, attempting to fill in the blanks for all the counter-factual information provided by industry, which doesn't happen to support your hypothesis. It's the scientific method, with all the warts and moles.
7) According to Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer's reporting, you're demonstrating significant filter bias, screening out all available information which may run counter to your mental construct about boric acid's actual impact on road vehicle performance. Donald Rumsfeld might say that,' There are known-knowns, known un-knowns, and un-known un-knowns'.
It's the last one a critical thinker would be focusing on.
8) When scientists are corrected, it can be a moment of great relief, now knowing that they needn't waste any more precious time following a flawed line of reasoning. You'd dug yourself a hole 28-months ago, and since then, it seems like you've just kept digging. And 'winning' the argument appears to be more important to you than establishing fact. That explains the push-back.