On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:


>> 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.

Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
occurrences.
--
Bob

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
> occurrences.

Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
quality orientation.

Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
"name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense. :-)

It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
mechanism.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
> occurrences.

Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
quality orientation.

Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
"name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense. :-)

It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
mechanism.

Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:15:31 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
> I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
> redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
> those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
> just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
> occurrences.

Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
quality orientation.

Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
"name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense. :-)

It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
mechanism.

Matt

 

Matt Whiting 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.
>
> Since you don't want to really see probably the most comprehensive
> COMPARISON data out there (I've certainly never seen anything like it
> from any other source), then I guess you should hang it up.
>
Nice try Matt, but that's not going to cut it. Either post the info or
send it to me. I'm not going to spend my money on an outdated article in
a motorcyle magazine just to refute your ridiculous claims. If you're so
invested in one friggin' magazine article, it's incumbent on YOU to
produce it.

I also find it pretty amazing that you can't even recall when the
article was or whether you have it, but you know for sure that it showed
huge differences between oils. Funny stuff, Matt.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Define "far better". What does that nebulous term mean in the real
>> world? How much of a difference in lubrication are we talking about
>> during a typical oil change interval? Is there even ANY AT ALL?
>
> Buy the article. Read it.
>
You send it to me and I'll read it.
>
>> It's convenient to throw around meaningless terms with nothing to back
>> them up or provide any context. The bottom line is that you simply
>> don't know, but you're not going to let that prevent you from making
>> unfounded claims. You read one article that's what, six years old, and
>> that's aparently become gospel for you. When you look at it that way,
>> it seems pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
>
> Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to be unwilling to obtain the data. It
> is much easier to just claim it doesn't exist.

Who said that? There you go making things up again, Matt. You seem to
have a REAL problem with that.

> It is the only comparison I've ever found among many different oils. I
> don't recall the details, but I believe they had upwards of 20 different
> brands tested. If you know of a more recent or more comprehensive
> comparison, I'm all ears. I'll even pay to buy it if you give me the
> reference.

Why don't you buy a copy of the article that you keep eluding to and
share it with us?

Is there something more current? Perhaps, but I have no idea and never
claimed to. Whether there is or not is irrelevent to whether your claims
have any validity. All you've done is make unfounded statements and
insinutations. That's not evidence or data, Matt.

>>> Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a
>>> maximum to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure
>>> equality at all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its
>>> pilots (and a maximum as well). Do you you really think this
>>> standard means that all pilots in the Air Force are the same height?
>>
>> Again, a pointless attempt to confuse the issue with a specious argument.
>>
>> If the SAE minimum standards exceed the requirements of engine
>> manufacturers - WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO - how can that possibly be a
>> problem? It can't be, except apparently in YOUR mind.
>>
>> BTW, I'm a Quality Assurance Engineer, so you're really barking up the
>> wrong tree when you try to make such ridiculous claims.
>
> It certainly isn't obvious that you are.

It would be if you had the slightest clue as to what it means or what
quality is.

> I'm guessing that you work for
> either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
> have made that connection earlier.

So now you're concocting conspiracy theories? Do you ever live in the
real world?

For the record, I have nothing to do with the petroleum industry or the
retail industry or any company that has anything to do with this
discussion.

Wait a minute, I get it. YOU work for Mobile, don't you??? That MUST BE
IT!!!

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it, Matt? Just like your comment above.

>> The SAE has continuously raised its standards, which has resulted in
>> continuous improvements in oil quality. Does that mean all oils are
>> the same? Of course not, but the more you raise the standard, the
>> smaller the differences become, since the upper limit isn't changing
>> much, if at all. When you get right down to it, there hasn't been a
>> truly significant development in motor oils since the introduction of
>> synthetics. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a
>> poor-quality, API certified oil.
>
> How do you know where the upper limit is? Back before the advent of
> synthetics, people making dino oils couldn't even imagine the
> performance capability of synthetics. Who knows what the next
> revolution in lubrication might be? Must be you do, so can you tell us
> what the upper limits are?

Yet another specious argument. Imagine that?

There are limits to current technology. That doesn't mean that there
won't be a breakthrough in the future comparable to the introduction of
synthetic oils, but it's not available today. Modern oils are mature
products; they've been researched and developed thoroughly. The
differences between them are tiny, as there's simply no place to go
within the limits of current technology. Any changes in the past decade
or two have been at best incremental and at worst, nothing but marketing
hype.

>> Speaking of synthetics, if natural oils are sufficient to meet the
>> needs of the engine(s) - WHICH THEY ARE ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI -
>> synthetics, which are demonstrably superior, are already a classic
>> case of "exceeding the need". What possible REAL-WORLD difference
>> could it make if one synthetic is fractionally "better" than another?
>>
>> The truth is that unless you're trying to push an oil to the limits of
>> its life by abusing your engine (racing) or extending your change
>> intervals to 10K, 15K or more miles, it doesn't make any difference
>> what oil you use. As long as you use an API SL/SM certified oil and
>> change it at Hyundai's suggested intervals, there is not likely to be
>> any difference in normal driving. If you don't want to believe that,
>> it's your perogative, but your personal paranoia doesn't change
>> anything. Perhaps you just find all the brand-name hype and bluster
>> comforting, but the truth is that it's just noise, as are your arguments.
>
> Funny, I was thinking the same things about yours...

Well, I'm not the one continually shooting myself in the foot by making
things up. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

Matt Whiting 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.
>
> Since you don't want to really see probably the most comprehensive
> COMPARISON data out there (I've certainly never seen anything like it
> from any other source), then I guess you should hang it up.
>
Nice try Matt, but that's not going to cut it. Either post the info or
send it to me. I'm not going to spend my money on an outdated article in
a motorcyle magazine just to refute your ridiculous claims. If you're so
invested in one friggin' magazine article, it's incumbent on YOU to
produce it.

I also find it pretty amazing that you can't even recall when the
article was or whether you have it, but you know for sure that it showed
huge differences between oils. Funny stuff, Matt.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Define "far better". What does that nebulous term mean in the real
>> world? How much of a difference in lubrication are we talking about
>> during a typical oil change interval? Is there even ANY AT ALL?
>
> Buy the article. Read it.
>
You send it to me and I'll read it.
>
>> It's convenient to throw around meaningless terms with nothing to back
>> them up or provide any context. The bottom line is that you simply
>> don't know, but you're not going to let that prevent you from making
>> unfounded claims. You read one article that's what, six years old, and
>> that's aparently become gospel for you. When you look at it that way,
>> it seems pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
>
> Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to be unwilling to obtain the data. It
> is much easier to just claim it doesn't exist.

Who said that? There you go making things up again, Matt. You seem to
have a REAL problem with that.

> It is the only comparison I've ever found among many different oils. I
> don't recall the details, but I believe they had upwards of 20 different
> brands tested. If you know of a more recent or more comprehensive
> comparison, I'm all ears. I'll even pay to buy it if you give me the
> reference.

Why don't you buy a copy of the article that you keep eluding to and
share it with us?

Is there something more current? Perhaps, but I have no idea and never
claimed to. Whether there is or not is irrelevent to whether your claims
have any validity. All you've done is make unfounded statements and
insinutations. That's not evidence or data, Matt.

>>> Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a
>>> maximum to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure
>>> equality at all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its
>>> pilots (and a maximum as well). Do you you really think this
>>> standard means that all pilots in the Air Force are the same height?
>>
>> Again, a pointless attempt to confuse the issue with a specious argument.
>>
>> If the SAE minimum standards exceed the requirements of engine
>> manufacturers - WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO - how can that possibly be a
>> problem? It can't be, except apparently in YOUR mind.
>>
>> BTW, I'm a Quality Assurance Engineer, so you're really barking up the
>> wrong tree when you try to make such ridiculous claims.
>
> It certainly isn't obvious that you are.

It would be if you had the slightest clue as to what it means or what
quality is.

> I'm guessing that you work for
> either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
> have made that connection earlier.

So now you're concocting conspiracy theories? Do you ever live in the
real world?

For the record, I have nothing to do with the petroleum industry or the
retail industry or any company that has anything to do with this
discussion.

Wait a minute, I get it. YOU work for Mobile, don't you??? That MUST BE
IT!!!

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it, Matt? Just like your comment above.

>> The SAE has continuously raised its standards, which has resulted in
>> continuous improvements in oil quality. Does that mean all oils are
>> the same? Of course not, but the more you raise the standard, the
>> smaller the differences become, since the upper limit isn't changing
>> much, if at all. When you get right down to it, there hasn't been a
>> truly significant development in motor oils since the introduction of
>> synthetics. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a
>> poor-quality, API certified oil.
>
> How do you know where the upper limit is? Back before the advent of
> synthetics, people making dino oils couldn't even imagine the
> performance capability of synthetics. Who knows what the next
> revolution in lubrication might be? Must be you do, so can you tell us
> what the upper limits are?

Yet another specious argument. Imagine that?

There are limits to current technology. That doesn't mean that there
won't be a breakthrough in the future comparable to the introduction of
synthetic oils, but it's not available today. Modern oils are mature
products; they've been researched and developed thoroughly. The
differences between them are tiny, as there's simply no place to go
within the limits of current technology. Any changes in the past decade
or two have been at best incremental and at worst, nothing but marketing
hype.

>> Speaking of synthetics, if natural oils are sufficient to meet the
>> needs of the engine(s) - WHICH THEY ARE ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI -
>> synthetics, which are demonstrably superior, are already a classic
>> case of "exceeding the need". What possible REAL-WORLD difference
>> could it make if one synthetic is fractionally "better" than another?
>>
>> The truth is that unless you're trying to push an oil to the limits of
>> its life by abusing your engine (racing) or extending your change
>> intervals to 10K, 15K or more miles, it doesn't make any difference
>> what oil you use. As long as you use an API SL/SM certified oil and
>> change it at Hyundai's suggested intervals, there is not likely to be
>> any difference in normal driving. If you don't want to believe that,
>> it's your perogative, but your personal paranoia doesn't change
>> anything. Perhaps you just find all the brand-name hype and bluster
>> comforting, but the truth is that it's just noise, as are your arguments.
>
> Funny, I was thinking the same things about yours...

Well, I'm not the one continually shooting myself in the foot by making
things up. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

Matt Whiting 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.
>
> Since you don't want to really see probably the most comprehensive
> COMPARISON data out there (I've certainly never seen anything like it
> from any other source), then I guess you should hang it up.
>
Nice try Matt, but that's not going to cut it. Either post the info or
send it to me. I'm not going to spend my money on an outdated article in
a motorcyle magazine just to refute your ridiculous claims. If you're so
invested in one friggin' magazine article, it's incumbent on YOU to
produce it.

I also find it pretty amazing that you can't even recall when the
article was or whether you have it, but you know for sure that it showed
huge differences between oils. Funny stuff, Matt.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Define "far better". What does that nebulous term mean in the real
>> world? How much of a difference in lubrication are we talking about
>> during a typical oil change interval? Is there even ANY AT ALL?
>
> Buy the article. Read it.
>
You send it to me and I'll read it.
>
>> It's convenient to throw around meaningless terms with nothing to back
>> them up or provide any context. The bottom line is that you simply
>> don't know, but you're not going to let that prevent you from making
>> unfounded claims. You read one article that's what, six years old, and
>> that's aparently become gospel for you. When you look at it that way,
>> it seems pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?
>
> Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous to be unwilling to obtain the data. It
> is much easier to just claim it doesn't exist.

Who said that? There you go making things up again, Matt. You seem to
have a REAL problem with that.

> It is the only comparison I've ever found among many different oils. I
> don't recall the details, but I believe they had upwards of 20 different
> brands tested. If you know of a more recent or more comprehensive
> comparison, I'm all ears. I'll even pay to buy it if you give me the
> reference.

Why don't you buy a copy of the article that you keep eluding to and
share it with us?

Is there something more current? Perhaps, but I have no idea and never
claimed to. Whether there is or not is irrelevent to whether your claims
have any validity. All you've done is make unfounded statements and
insinutations. That's not evidence or data, Matt.

>>> Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a
>>> maximum to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure
>>> equality at all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its
>>> pilots (and a maximum as well). Do you you really think this
>>> standard means that all pilots in the Air Force are the same height?
>>
>> Again, a pointless attempt to confuse the issue with a specious argument.
>>
>> If the SAE minimum standards exceed the requirements of engine
>> manufacturers - WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO - how can that possibly be a
>> problem? It can't be, except apparently in YOUR mind.
>>
>> BTW, I'm a Quality Assurance Engineer, so you're really barking up the
>> wrong tree when you try to make such ridiculous claims.
>
> It certainly isn't obvious that you are.

It would be if you had the slightest clue as to what it means or what
quality is.

> I'm guessing that you work for
> either Wal-Mart or the folks that bottle Supertech, right? I should
> have made that connection earlier.

So now you're concocting conspiracy theories? Do you ever live in the
real world?

For the record, I have nothing to do with the petroleum industry or the
retail industry or any company that has anything to do with this
discussion.

Wait a minute, I get it. YOU work for Mobile, don't you??? That MUST BE
IT!!!

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it, Matt? Just like your comment above.

>> The SAE has continuously raised its standards, which has resulted in
>> continuous improvements in oil quality. Does that mean all oils are
>> the same? Of course not, but the more you raise the standard, the
>> smaller the differences become, since the upper limit isn't changing
>> much, if at all. When you get right down to it, there hasn't been a
>> truly significant development in motor oils since the introduction of
>> synthetics. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a
>> poor-quality, API certified oil.
>
> How do you know where the upper limit is? Back before the advent of
> synthetics, people making dino oils couldn't even imagine the
> performance capability of synthetics. Who knows what the next
> revolution in lubrication might be? Must be you do, so can you tell us
> what the upper limits are?

Yet another specious argument. Imagine that?

There are limits to current technology. That doesn't mean that there
won't be a breakthrough in the future comparable to the introduction of
synthetic oils, but it's not available today. Modern oils are mature
products; they've been researched and developed thoroughly. The
differences between them are tiny, as there's simply no place to go
within the limits of current technology. Any changes in the past decade
or two have been at best incremental and at worst, nothing but marketing
hype.

>> Speaking of synthetics, if natural oils are sufficient to meet the
>> needs of the engine(s) - WHICH THEY ARE ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI -
>> synthetics, which are demonstrably superior, are already a classic
>> case of "exceeding the need". What possible REAL-WORLD difference
>> could it make if one synthetic is fractionally "better" than another?
>>
>> The truth is that unless you're trying to push an oil to the limits of
>> its life by abusing your engine (racing) or extending your change
>> intervals to 10K, 15K or more miles, it doesn't make any difference
>> what oil you use. As long as you use an API SL/SM certified oil and
>> change it at Hyundai's suggested intervals, there is not likely to be
>> any difference in normal driving. If you don't want to believe that,
>> it's your perogative, but your personal paranoia doesn't change
>> anything. Perhaps you just find all the brand-name hype and bluster
>> comforting, but the truth is that it's just noise, as are your arguments.
>
> Funny, I was thinking the same things about yours...

Well, I'm not the one continually shooting myself in the foot by making
things up. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>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."


Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.

at the government source

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work."

You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.

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 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>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."


Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.

at the government source

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work."

You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.

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 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:24:01 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:

>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."


Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.

at the government source

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work."

You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots

 

Hmm . . . I believe the original queston was regarding synthetic oil
for the Sonata V6, not some debating match on the technicalities of
"everything pertaining to oil QC and pricing." Just purchase a case of
Mobil 1 5W-30, and be done with it. I just paid $4.49 per quart this
evening, either single quarts or case quantities. I think all of us
have far too much time on our hands!

 

Hmm . . . I believe the original queston was regarding synthetic oil
for the Sonata V6, not some debating match on the technicalities of
"everything pertaining to oil QC and pricing." Just purchase a case of
Mobil 1 5W-30, and be done with it. I just paid $4.49 per quart this
evening, either single quarts or case quantities. I think all of us
have far too much time on our hands!

 

Hmm . . . I believe the original queston was regarding synthetic oil
for the Sonata V6, not some debating match on the technicalities of
"everything pertaining to oil QC and pricing." Just purchase a case of
Mobil 1 5W-30, and be done with it. I just paid $4.49 per quart this
evening, either single quarts or case quantities. I think all of us
have far too much time on our hands!

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...

> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
> price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
> products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
> Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>
That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.

I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
really clean.

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:CCYWf.7577$lb.679480@news1.epix.net...

> Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
> price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
> products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
> Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?
>
That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.

I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
really clean.