[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>> several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>> patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>> parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>
>>
>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>
>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>> 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>> have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>> way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>> article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>> up or shut up.
>
>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>publishing it here.

A quote of a significant data item with credits is "fair use" and violates
no copyright.

In another thread about octane you accused me of "just making things up"
Well, you are doing exactly the same thing many places in this thread.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>> several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>> patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>> parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>
>>
>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>
>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>> 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>> have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>> way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>> article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>> up or shut up.
>
>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>publishing it here.


You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>> several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>> patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>> parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>
>>
>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>
>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>> 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>> have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>> way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>> article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>> up or shut up.
>
>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>publishing it here.


You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>> several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>> patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>> parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>
>>
>> Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>> difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>
>> I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>> 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>> have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>> way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>> article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>> up or shut up.
>
>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>publishing it here.


You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Once again, you're conconcting hypothetical, non-existent problems in
>> an effort to scare people into siding with you. What's with this
>> nonsense? What drives you to simply make things up?
>
> Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
> cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
> What do you have against quality products and brand names?
>
> What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?

I never said that; you just made that up, too. You really need to get a
grip.

>>> I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I
>>> am the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic
>>> suppliers. And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic
>>> products, especially those without some independent oversight such as
>>> FDA, etc.
>>
>> So I guess the INDUSTRY STANDARD API certification isn't enough for
>> you? What the heck do you want?
>
> A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?

As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know exactly what the difference is.
Without a standard, you can't have Quality Control, as there is nothing
to measure quality against. The purpose of QC is to ensure that a
product meets the required standard.

It's convenient for you to call into question the quality of products
that you want to denegrate, but the truth is that you know nothing about
their QC procedures. I sent you test data that shows that Super Tech oil
is a good product, but I guess you don't want to let facts interfere
with your opinions. You make nebulous accusations of inferior quality
with no evidence that it's actually the case. Is that the best you can do?

>> We're talking about oil that comes from a source that produces oils
>> for name brand companies that you seem to think are just fine. It's
>> the same product with different labels. You can make up all kinds of
>> preposterous, hypothetical problems, but you can't change the facts.
>> If you want to be paranoid and spending more money makes you feel more
>> secure, do whatever you want. But this fear-mongering of yours is
>> nothing but an attempt to project your insecurties on others; it has
>> nothing to do with the quality of the products we're discussing.
>> Either that, or you're just so desperate for your viewpoint to prevail
>> in this discussion that you'll say anything.
>
> Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
> with only different labels.

Show me one piece of evidence that they're not? I've given you the
information you need for comparison, so get off your butt and check it
out. You rag on me and others here about not producing any data, but all
you've done is cite one lame old article in a motorcycle magazine that
no one else here has seen. Where's the beef, Matt?

>> If you want to do some actual research into the products, this API
>> site is a good place to start:
>>
>> http://eolcs.api.org/%5Cindex.html
>>
>> You can look up anything you want to know about oils, certification
>> standards, licencees and more.
>
> Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
> have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
> threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
> give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
> but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
> those levels.

Here we go again with the ridiculous hyperbole. What exactly is
"radically exceeding"? Exactly how much difference do you think there
can be in oils when the API standards are so high. In a previous
discussion, you acknowledged that the differences are minuscule at best.
Have you suddenly changed your mind?

> Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
> now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
> the standard so they must all be equal, right?

No, I never said anything of the sort. How many more stupid statements
like this do you plan to make up, Matt? You're not helping your case by
continually doing this, as nobody is buying it.

>> If you enter "super tech" in the "Brand Name Contains" box and do a
>> search, you'll see that most Super Tech oils are certified API SM, the
>> highest current rating, and all other Super Tech motor oils are
>> certified API SL (for 2004 and older cars). Here's a guide to what the
>> API certifications mean:
>>
>> http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/AP...Guide_2004.pdf
>>
>> If you look at their recommendations, you'll notice that they're
>> strikingly similar to what Hyundai recommends for their engines.
>>
>> Like I said, do whatever you want, but lets cut through all the crap, OK?
>
> Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
> that all products tested against the standard are equal.

That's three times in one post that you've made the same assinine
statement. All you've done is try to put words in my mouth, but I'm not
about to let you get away with doing that. How about some substance, Matt?

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Once again, you're conconcting hypothetical, non-existent problems in
>> an effort to scare people into siding with you. What's with this
>> nonsense? What drives you to simply make things up?
>
> Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
> cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
> What do you have against quality products and brand names?
>
> What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?

I never said that; you just made that up, too. You really need to get a
grip.

>>> I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I
>>> am the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic
>>> suppliers. And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic
>>> products, especially those without some independent oversight such as
>>> FDA, etc.
>>
>> So I guess the INDUSTRY STANDARD API certification isn't enough for
>> you? What the heck do you want?
>
> A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?

As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know exactly what the difference is.
Without a standard, you can't have Quality Control, as there is nothing
to measure quality against. The purpose of QC is to ensure that a
product meets the required standard.

It's convenient for you to call into question the quality of products
that you want to denegrate, but the truth is that you know nothing about
their QC procedures. I sent you test data that shows that Super Tech oil
is a good product, but I guess you don't want to let facts interfere
with your opinions. You make nebulous accusations of inferior quality
with no evidence that it's actually the case. Is that the best you can do?

>> We're talking about oil that comes from a source that produces oils
>> for name brand companies that you seem to think are just fine. It's
>> the same product with different labels. You can make up all kinds of
>> preposterous, hypothetical problems, but you can't change the facts.
>> If you want to be paranoid and spending more money makes you feel more
>> secure, do whatever you want. But this fear-mongering of yours is
>> nothing but an attempt to project your insecurties on others; it has
>> nothing to do with the quality of the products we're discussing.
>> Either that, or you're just so desperate for your viewpoint to prevail
>> in this discussion that you'll say anything.
>
> Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
> with only different labels.

Show me one piece of evidence that they're not? I've given you the
information you need for comparison, so get off your butt and check it
out. You rag on me and others here about not producing any data, but all
you've done is cite one lame old article in a motorcycle magazine that
no one else here has seen. Where's the beef, Matt?

>> If you want to do some actual research into the products, this API
>> site is a good place to start:
>>
>> http://eolcs.api.org/%5Cindex.html
>>
>> You can look up anything you want to know about oils, certification
>> standards, licencees and more.
>
> Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
> have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
> threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
> give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
> but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
> those levels.

Here we go again with the ridiculous hyperbole. What exactly is
"radically exceeding"? Exactly how much difference do you think there
can be in oils when the API standards are so high. In a previous
discussion, you acknowledged that the differences are minuscule at best.
Have you suddenly changed your mind?

> Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
> now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
> the standard so they must all be equal, right?

No, I never said anything of the sort. How many more stupid statements
like this do you plan to make up, Matt? You're not helping your case by
continually doing this, as nobody is buying it.

>> If you enter "super tech" in the "Brand Name Contains" box and do a
>> search, you'll see that most Super Tech oils are certified API SM, the
>> highest current rating, and all other Super Tech motor oils are
>> certified API SL (for 2004 and older cars). Here's a guide to what the
>> API certifications mean:
>>
>> http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/AP...Guide_2004.pdf
>>
>> If you look at their recommendations, you'll notice that they're
>> strikingly similar to what Hyundai recommends for their engines.
>>
>> Like I said, do whatever you want, but lets cut through all the crap, OK?
>
> Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
> that all products tested against the standard are equal.

That's three times in one post that you've made the same assinine
statement. All you've done is try to put words in my mouth, but I'm not
about to let you get away with doing that. How about some substance, Matt?

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Once again, you're conconcting hypothetical, non-existent problems in
>> an effort to scare people into siding with you. What's with this
>> nonsense? What drives you to simply make things up?
>
> Like you are trying to convince people that they can just buy the
> cheapest products out there and have equivalence to better products?
> What do you have against quality products and brand names?
>
> What drives you to make up claims that all oils are created equal?

I never said that; you just made that up, too. You really need to get a
grip.

>>> I'm not nearly as worried about the "normal" batch of cheap oil as I
>>> am the batch that gets through the poorer QA system of generic
>>> suppliers. And this just an oil issue, it is true with many generic
>>> products, especially those without some independent oversight such as
>>> FDA, etc.
>>
>> So I guess the INDUSTRY STANDARD API certification isn't enough for
>> you? What the heck do you want?
>
> A standard isn't quality control. Don't you know the difference?

As a Quality Assurance Engineer, I know exactly what the difference is.
Without a standard, you can't have Quality Control, as there is nothing
to measure quality against. The purpose of QC is to ensure that a
product meets the required standard.

It's convenient for you to call into question the quality of products
that you want to denegrate, but the truth is that you know nothing about
their QC procedures. I sent you test data that shows that Super Tech oil
is a good product, but I guess you don't want to let facts interfere
with your opinions. You make nebulous accusations of inferior quality
with no evidence that it's actually the case. Is that the best you can do?

>> We're talking about oil that comes from a source that produces oils
>> for name brand companies that you seem to think are just fine. It's
>> the same product with different labels. You can make up all kinds of
>> preposterous, hypothetical problems, but you can't change the facts.
>> If you want to be paranoid and spending more money makes you feel more
>> secure, do whatever you want. But this fear-mongering of yours is
>> nothing but an attempt to project your insecurties on others; it has
>> nothing to do with the quality of the products we're discussing.
>> Either that, or you're just so desperate for your viewpoint to prevail
>> in this discussion that you'll say anything.
>
> Show one piece of evidence that they are all the same exact products
> with only different labels.

Show me one piece of evidence that they're not? I've given you the
information you need for comparison, so get off your butt and check it
out. You rag on me and others here about not producing any data, but all
you've done is cite one lame old article in a motorcycle magazine that
no one else here has seen. Where's the beef, Matt?

>> If you want to do some actual research into the products, this API
>> site is a good place to start:
>>
>> http://eolcs.api.org/%5Cindex.html
>>
>> You can look up anything you want to know about oils, certification
>> standards, licencees and more.
>
> Yes, I know that oil producers have to pay to use the API symbol and
> have to "certify" that their products meet the API standards, with the
> threat of occasional spot checking by the API. Again, standards at best
> give some assurance that a product meets a miniumum performance level,
> but it certainly doesn't preclude a company from radically exceeding
> those levels.

Here we go again with the ridiculous hyperbole. What exactly is
"radically exceeding"? Exactly how much difference do you think there
can be in oils when the API standards are so high. In a previous
discussion, you acknowledged that the differences are minuscule at best.
Have you suddenly changed your mind?

> Most cars meet the government's minimum crash standards. Do you really
> now believe that all cars are equally crashworthy? After all, they meet
> the standard so they must all be equal, right?

No, I never said anything of the sort. How many more stupid statements
like this do you plan to make up, Matt? You're not helping your case by
continually doing this, as nobody is buying it.

>> If you enter "super tech" in the "Brand Name Contains" box and do a
>> search, you'll see that most Super Tech oils are certified API SM, the
>> highest current rating, and all other Super Tech motor oils are
>> certified API SL (for 2004 and older cars). Here's a guide to what the
>> API certifications mean:
>>
>> http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/AP...Guide_2004.pdf
>>
>> If you look at their recommendations, you'll notice that they're
>> strikingly similar to what Hyundai recommends for their engines.
>>
>> Like I said, do whatever you want, but lets cut through all the crap, OK?
>
> Yes, I wish you would learn what standards mean. Hint: they don't mean
> that all products tested against the standard are equal.

That's three times in one post that you've made the same assinine
statement. All you've done is try to put words in my mouth, but I'm not
about to let you get away with doing that. How about some substance, Matt?

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:19:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> last basic quality control tests. If metal filings from a refinery
>>> problem get out due to poor QA, then your in trouble synthetic or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>
>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>
>
> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
> against such refinery or bottling accidents.

True, so what's your point? Do you have EVEN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
Warren Oil doesn't have outstanding QC? In case you can't bring yourself
to let the word past your lips, I'll help you. The answer is "no".

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:19:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> last basic quality control tests. If metal filings from a refinery
>>> problem get out due to poor QA, then your in trouble synthetic or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>
>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>
>
> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
> against such refinery or bottling accidents.

True, so what's your point? Do you have EVEN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
Warren Oil doesn't have outstanding QC? In case you can't bring yourself
to let the word past your lips, I'll help you. The answer is "no".

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:19:28 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> last basic quality control tests. If metal filings from a refinery
>>> problem get out due to poor QA, then your in trouble synthetic or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, that's a relic of the 1950's. Ain't gonna happen!
>>
>> Even if it did happen, no oil bottler is immune to accidents.
>
>
> Absolutely. And a good QA/QC program is your last line of defense
> against such refinery or bottling accidents.

True, so what's your point? Do you have EVEN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
Warren Oil doesn't have outstanding QC? In case you can't bring yourself
to let the word past your lips, I'll help you. The answer is "no".

 

gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>
>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>up or shut up.
>>
>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>publishing it here.
>
>
>
> You just "made up" copyright law.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
> the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
> regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
> author's observations;...."

If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
passage." As best I recall, the article was very long and took two or
three issues of the magazine to contain it all. I wouldn't type in that
much information even if I had it and it was legal, not to save you a
few bucks because you are too cheap to buy a legitimate copy.

So long and thanks for playing.

Matt

 

gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>
>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>up or shut up.
>>
>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>publishing it here.
>
>
>
> You just "made up" copyright law.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
> the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
> regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
> author's observations;...."

If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
passage." As best I recall, the article was very long and took two or
three issues of the magazine to contain it all. I wouldn't type in that
much information even if I had it and it was legal, not to save you a
few bucks because you are too cheap to buy a legitimate copy.

So long and thanks for playing.

Matt

 

gerry wrote:
> [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:27:19 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>>>several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>>>patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>>>parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
>>>difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?
>>>
>>>I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
>>>5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
>>>have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
>>>way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
>>>article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
>>>up or shut up.
>>
>>It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
>>location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
>>have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
>>was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
>>publishing it here.
>
>
>
> You just "made up" copyright law.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
> the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
> regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
> author's observations;...."

If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
passage." As best I recall, the article was very long and took two or
three issues of the magazine to contain it all. I wouldn't type in that
much information even if I had it and it was legal, not to save you a
few bucks because you are too cheap to buy a legitimate copy.

So long and thanks for playing.

Matt

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:HNDWf.7563$lb.676974@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:53:53 GMT, Brian Nystrom
>>
>>
>> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And that happened how long ago? IIRC, that was something like 25 years
>>>>> ago and the problem was corrected. Have you heard of even ONE quality
>>>>> issue with modern oils?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point!
>>>>
>>>> Once upon a time when we all had dark hair, there was a wide difference
>>
>>
>> in
>>
>>>> oil quality. Some was pretty good, some was bilge sludge.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst.
>>
>>
>> Almost
>>
>>>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>> several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>> patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>> parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>
>>> Some oils have far better additive packages than others, and the
>>> correlation wasn't perfect with price and brand name, but it was
>>> significantly correlated.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Now that's a significant statement Matt - if it can be substantiated and
>> qualified. Can you share what kind of data you saw? What were the
>> parameters that differed and made that impression on you? How did those
>> parameters compare to standards? In other words - what were the
>> specifics?
>> Is the data you saw available for review?
>
>
> Yes, if you'll pay the $7 or whatever a back issue of MCN costs. I
> provided the reference some time ago.

Why don't you scan it and send it to us? I sent you the data I had. I
doubt that MCN is going to get worked up over a six-year-old article
being sent to a handful of people.

Hmmm, I suppose I could take a page out of your book and insinuate that
you MUST have something to hide, since you haven't produced the goods.
You MUST have gone back and re-read the article and figured out that you
were wrong. Yeah, that MUST be it!

See, it's easy to make up crap. How about producing some evidence, Matt?

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:HNDWf.7563$lb.676974@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:53:53 GMT, Brian Nystrom
>>
>>
>> <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And that happened how long ago? IIRC, that was something like 25 years
>>>>> ago and the problem was corrected. Have you heard of even ONE quality
>>>>> issue with modern oils?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point!
>>>>
>>>> Once upon a time when we all had dark hair, there was a wide difference
>>
>>
>> in
>>
>>>> oil quality. Some was pretty good, some was bilge sludge.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst.
>>
>>
>> Almost
>>
>>>> imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
>>> several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
>>> patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
>>> parameter of the oil that was tested.
>>>
>>> Some oils have far better additive packages than others, and the
>>> correlation wasn't perfect with price and brand name, but it was
>>> significantly correlated.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Now that's a significant statement Matt - if it can be substantiated and
>> qualified. Can you share what kind of data you saw? What were the
>> parameters that differed and made that impression on you? How did those
>> parameters compare to standards? In other words - what were the
>> specifics?
>> Is the data you saw available for review?
>
>
> Yes, if you'll pay the $7 or whatever a back issue of MCN costs. I
> provided the reference some time ago.

Why don't you scan it and send it to us? I sent you the data I had. I
doubt that MCN is going to get worked up over a six-year-old article
being sent to a handful of people.

Hmmm, I suppose I could take a page out of your book and insinuate that
you MUST have something to hide, since you haven't produced the goods.
You MUST have gone back and re-read the article and figured out that you
were wrong. Yeah, that MUST be it!

See, it's easy to make up crap. How about producing some evidence, Matt?