| Author | Message | ||
     Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 663 Registered: 9-2004 |
Moderators part opinion. "I am not prepared to allow "statements of fact" that are not consistent with the published recommendations of the vehicle manufacturer as some readers may take these personal opinions as fact and act on them to their future detriment". Now i am worried with the stated advise from the moderator. How long before a product can be used or not used if NOT recomended by say RR,Ie synthetic oil in SS. Antifreeze G-05 used correctly of course. Have RR recommended the use of radial tyres and sizes on non compliant older cars. Then there is the spurious parts that we all use including brake pads on some! The list is to long for here. These have been proved ok by the owners over the years! Maybe R Treacy, D Gore could shed some light,re opted out clauses by insuance etc. And how long testing should take to make a product permissible by the owner. Now back to my new toy! a car of cars. | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 712 Registered: 4-2003 |
Pat, I am not going to publically debate this with you "ad infinitum". I will just say that you continually appear to miss the point regarding the problems you are creating with your presentation of your personal opinions as dogmatic statements of fact. When others offer an alternative point of view, you have a tendency to adopt a "win-at-all-costs" justification of your opinion often using selective or distorted interpretations of these opinions. This approach detracts from the objective of this forum as well as annoying other users who wish to read constructive rather than destructive material. As I have written in another thread; "sometimes we have to agree to disagree" and "there are no prizes or kudos awarded". You have a lot of experience and knowledge to share with our users; please do not place us in a situation where your contributions may no longer be available. | ||
| Patrick Lockyer. Grand Master Username: pat_lockyer Post Number: 668 Registered: 9-2004 |
Hopeing that my posts are constructive and that they are not always my personal views. Re spurious parts for RR. As R Treacy has said quote; "materials and components are often improved upon over time, and those improvements are often well worthwhile. Many improved components are not available through Crewe" These also are not recommended by RR. Can we take G-05 as a material,with all approvals from the correct bodys this is just what is implied by RT. Please note,this is a discussion. | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 713 Registered: 4-2003 |
Pat, You have expressed your opinion; Richard has expressed his. You hold differing points of view and this will remain the case for the immediate future until more information becomes available. I respectfully suggest to you Stephe Boddice's experience with his PIII engine must set the alarm bells ringing especially for "wet-liner" engines. A prudent person would refrain from taking previously published sales promotion material for the product concerned as a statement of fact until this matter is properly resolved. Please do not attempt to selectively quote another contributor's opinion out of context to try and justify your opinion as above. This not only offends the contributor concerned but also has the potential to mislead the casual user who does not read the threads concerned in their entirety. This thread is now closed. |
