Originally posted by DemonSVT:
I'm not infallible.
On the rare occasions I am wrong on a subject I own up to it. Normally though if I am arguing a point it's because I know I am right.  I make certain of my side before I go head first into an argument based on hard data or science. That is why I normally can come right back with information supporting my side. I don't go off arguing points of fact I can't prove with hard data or scientific proof because that just is not logical. I also don't argue using biased marketing theory and strategy.
And how do you know for a fact that Amsoil is biased in there testing?
And Mobil 1 doesn't skew it's tests. They are ballsy enough to say that they're #1 in synthetics. That to me is very shady.
Quote:
Now arguing theory is different because it is just that. A theory or scientific hypothesis. If you don't bring up ideas like that for round table discussion then nothing gets settled or hashed out. Then many parties can discuss & back their theory against each other and many times all the parties involved have many of their points by correct even if the overall theories are opposing.
If one was not confident in their own thinking then they could not do their ideas justice. Just because one is confident in their intelligence and thinking does not make them "holier-than-thou" 
Then why must you act holier than thou? 
06 GMC Sierra 2500HD Dmax/ally
06 Pontiac G6 GT
05 CRF250R
FOR SALE 06 KX65 with riding gear $2700 obo
| 
