 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / May 2006Bio Performance fuel pill scam - really that many dumbasses in America?
The local news has been running this story and some questions come to mind. I notice most of those shown at the local "rally" for this snake oil MLM-Pyramid scheme seemed to be older folks. Are there really that many pathologically stupid geezers, in addition to various other brainless goobers? Geezus, I thought age was supposed to bring wisdom. How can you be any older than 25 and not recognize a load of crap this obvious? Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the legal machinery catches up to them? http://www.wesh.com/news/9241754/detail.html http://www.bioperformancegasdieselfuel.com/ >The local news has been running this story and some questions come to >mind. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >goobers? Geezus, I thought age was supposed to bring wisdom. How can >you be any older than 25 and not recognize a load of crap this obvious? Stupid and ignorant *kids* grow up to become stupid and ignorant adults. >Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going >to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before >the legal machinery catches up to them? Like a boiler room operation, they can probably pack up and scram to a new name and location in hours. >http://www.wesh.com/news/9241754/detail.html > >http://www.bioperformancegasdieselfuel.com/ Hello Spob: You wrote in conference rec.autos.tech,misc.consumers,soc.senior.issues,misc.legal on 18 May 2006 21:04:30 -0700: S> The local news has been running this story and some questions come to S> mind. S> I notice most of those shown at the local "rally" for this snake oil S> MLM-Pyramid scheme seemed to be older folks. Are there really that many S> pathologically stupid geezers, in addition to various other brainless S> goobers? Geezus, I thought age was supposed to bring wisdom. How can S> you be any older than 25 and not recognize a load of crap this obvious? Easy. It's the same folks who believe that govt knows the identities of 19 hijackers because their passports dropped from their pockets during the plane crash, and accurately landed on the top of remains of the skyscraper that crashed an hour later. This tale is commonly accepted and is not even actually questioned. Or that Arab terrorists, who never were known to be capable of anything more sophisticated than pulling the cord of a primitive detonator, could accomplish an incredible operation involving hijacking of several planes and piloting them for many hundred miles exactly to a building presumably not equipped with ILS. The snake oil is important for their SUV's each displaying several ribbons about their support of our troops. Ultimate comfort, so to speak. >Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going >to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before >the legal machinery catches up to them? Why not? Slick 50 still sells, why not a fuel pill? >> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to >> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the >> legal machinery catches up to them? > Why not? Slick 50 still sells, why not a fuel pill? Slick 50, which has been acquired by and is now a subsidiary of Quaker State, is engine oil with tiny bits of teflon added. And it does significantly reduce friction in the engine. But the downside is, it also increases the rate of residue buildup in the oil passageways. Is it worth the tradeoff? I dunno, I've never used the stuff. But it is a legitimate product, sold by a legitimate company. If you do use it, it is probably a good idea to change the oil filter often.  SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not >>> going to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a legitimate product, sold by a legitimate company. If you do use it, > it is probably a good idea to change the oil filter often. well I quess you just proved the point about dumb kids if you believe slick 50 is a ligitemit product. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to >>>> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before >>>> the legal machinery catches up to them? >>> Why not? Slick 50 still sells, why not a fuel pill? >> Slick 50, which has been acquired by and is now a subsidiary of Quaker >> State, is engine oil with tiny bits of teflon added. And it does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> product, sold by a legitimate company. If you do use it, it is probably a >> good idea to change the oil filter often. > well I quess you just proved the point about dumb kids if you believe slick > 50 is a ligitemit product. KB Why isn't it? It's marketed by a reputable company and sold in all major auto stores and centers: <http://www.slick50.com/locations.htm> BTW, it is actually an additive, and not treated oil. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not >>>>> going to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why isn't it? It's marketed by a reputable company and sold in all > major auto stores and centers: It is sold by a company that bailed it out after being sued by the Gov. for false advertising. Their primary purpose is to make money, not provide a good product. It was proven long ago that teflon is a usless additive to engines and does actually risk pluging oil passages and filters. It is a BAD product purchased by ignorant people to enrich the company that sells it. Its ONLY purpose for existance. KB > <http://www.slick50.com/locations.htm> > > BTW, it is actually an additive, and not treated oil. SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not >>>> going to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > well I quess you just proved the point about dumb kids if you believe >slick 50 is a ligitemit product. KB Now THAT is a well-researched, thoroughly documented rebuttal. >>>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not >>>>> going to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Now THAT is a well-researched, thoroughly documented rebuttal. Well it has been well known for several years now that slick 50 is a barely legel product. The fact you don`t know that is quite a indication that your not paying ANY attenction. I`ll be darned if I do your research when it was on the papers front page a couple of years back. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. > >> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to > >> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is engine oil with tiny bits of teflon added. And it does significantly > reduce friction in the engine. If that is true, why doesn't DuPont endorse the use of PTFE as an engine oil additive? You'd think they'd be happy that Slick 50 is buying their product but they have decidedly distanced themselves from the whole mess. They haven't stopped selling to them, but that's about all that they haven't done. > But the downside is, it also increases the > rate of residue buildup in the oil passageways. maybe... > Is it worth the tradeoff? no. All it does is make your wallet lighter. > I > dunno, I've never used the stuff. But it is a legitimate product, sold by a > legitimate company. If you do use it, it is probably a good idea to change > the oil filter often. If you use it, it's a good idea to stop, and invest the money you were spending on snake oil on a quality motor oil instead. nate >>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to >>>> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the >>>> legal machinery catches up to them? >>> Why not? Slick 50 still sells, why not a fuel pill? >> Slick 50, which has been acquired by and is now a subsidiary of Quaker >> State, is engine oil with tiny bits of teflon added. And it does >> significantly reduce friction in the engine. > If that is true, why doesn't DuPont endorse the use of PTFE as an engine > oil additive? You'd think they'd be happy that Slick 50 is buying their > product but they have decidedly distanced themselves from the whole mess. > They haven't stopped selling to them, but that's about all that they > haven't done. Teflon ... PTFE? So "Teflon" is Dupont's trademark for PTFE? I have no idea whether Slick 50 contains the Dupont product, or the same stuff manufactured by someone else (perhaps even themselves). >> But the downside is, it also increases the rate of residue buildup in the >> oil passageways. > maybe ... Studies have shown. >> Is it worth the tradeoff? > no. All it does is make your wallet lighter. It performs as advertised (at the cost of making your wallet lighter). You have decided that it isn't worth the cost. Others haved decided otherwise. >> I dunno, I've never used the stuff. But it is a legitimate product, sold >> by a legitimate company. If you do use it, it is probably a good idea to >> change the oil filter often. > If you use it, it's a good idea to stop, For what reason? > and invest the money you were spending on snake oil on a quality motor oil > instead. Why should you be calling it "snake oil" if it is a legitimate product that performs as advertised and is marketed by a reputable company? SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > >>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to > >>>> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Teflon ... PTFE? So "Teflon" is Dupont's trademark for PTFE? exactly. "Teflon" is a registered trademark for polytetrafluoroethylene. > I have no idea > whether Slick 50 contains the Dupont product, or the same stuff manufactured > by someone else (perhaps even themselves). I honestly don't know if DuPont's patent is still good, but at least in the past, Slick 50 was buying their PTFE from DuPont. > >> But the downside is, it also increases the rate of residue buildup in the > >> oil passageways. > > > maybe ... > > Studies have shown. I believe this part, have not cared enough to look into it. > >> Is it worth the tradeoff? > > > no. All it does is make your wallet lighter. > > It performs as advertised (at the cost of making your wallet lighter). You > have decided that it isn't worth the cost. Others haved decided otherwise. I'm not aware of a single study that shows any of the benefits that Slick 50 claims for their product actually exist. > >> I dunno, I've never used the stuff. But it is a legitimate product, sold > >> by a legitimate company. If you do use it, it is probably a good idea to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > For what reason? Because it's a waste of money, and at best it won't harm your engine. > > and invest the money you were spending on snake oil on a quality motor oil > > instead. > > Why should you be calling it "snake oil" if it is a legitimate product that > performs as advertised and is marketed by a reputable company? It's a product, it *doesn't* perform as advertised, it certainly has a slight but real risk of harming your engine. If you insist that a company that produces a product like that is "reputable" that's your prerogative, but I disagree. I have a similar opinion of Fram and their PTFE-impregnated oil filters. nate >> >>>> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to >> >>>> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > >nate Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any more significant that that of your average houseplant? > Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any > more significant that that of your average houseplant? Nope. And I really don't much care, as I don't use the stuff. But if you want to make the claim that the folks who run Quaker State are really just a bunch of scammers, have at it. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any >>more significant that that of your average houseplant? > > Nope. And I really don't much care, as I don't use the stuff. But if you > want to make the claim that the folks who run Quaker State are really just a > bunch of scammers, have at it. http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50fcn.html yup, they are scammers. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>> Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any >>> more significant that that of your average houseplant? >> Nope. And I really don't much care, as I don't use the stuff. But if you >> want to make the claim that the folks who run Quaker State are really just >> a bunch of scammers, have at it. > http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50fcn.html > yup, they are scammers. That was simply a consent decree and NOT a conviction. Anyway, in the eyes of Clinton-era bureaucrats, ANY business that makes a profit must by definition be a scammer (particularly if they hadn't contributed the requisite amount to the Clinton re-election effort). But it was Bill Clinton who was the REAL scammer. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>>> Do you have any documented credentials that would make your >>>> opinions any more significant that that of your average houseplant? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the requisite amount to the Clinton re-election effort). But it was > Bill Clinton who was the REAL scammer. Gee that was a nice side slide to not acknoldge you were wrong. Just change the focus eh??????? KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>>>> Do you have any documented credentials that would make your >>>>> opinions any more significant that that of your average houseplant? >>>> Nope. And I really don't much care, as I don't use the stuff. But >>>> if you want to make the claim that the folks who run Quaker State >>>> are really just a bunch of scammers, have at it. >>> http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/legal/s50fcn.html >>> yup, they are scammers. >> That was simply a consent decree and NOT a conviction. Anyway, in the >> eyes of Clinton-era bureaucrats, ANY business that makes a profit must by >> definition be a scammer (particularly if they hadn't contributed the >> requisite amount to the Clinton re-election effort). But it was Bill >> Clinton who was the REAL scammer. > Gee that was a nice side slide to not acknoldge you were wrong. Just > change the focus eh??????? I wasn't wrong. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>>>>> Do you have any documented credentials that would make your >>>>>> opinions any more significant that that of your average [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I wasn't wrong. Half a dozen people have pointed out that Slick 50 is nothing but a lousy barely legel scam, but if you think your not wrong, go buy a case full for all I care. I would not use it as a gift. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any >>more significant that that of your average houseplant? > > Nope. That would *never* stop our Teddi, though he tells others to STFU all the time when they don't have credentials. >>> Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any >>> more significant that that of your average houseplant? >> Nope. > That would *never* stop our Teddi, though he tells others to STFU all the > time when they don't have credentials. Ken has issues. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>>>Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any >>>>more significant that that of your average houseplant? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ken has issues. Whether Ken has issues or not is irrelevant to whether you have a "STFU" standard (Hey! Now you can spell out "Shut The f.ck Up" since you're no longer concerned about fooling Jesus with asterisks in curse words!) which you apply to others that you fail to apply to yourself in the same context. That's why "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy. WMD >>>>> Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions >>>>> any more significant that that of your average houseplant? >>>> Nope. >>> That would *never* stop our Teddi, though he tells others to STFU all the >>> time when they don't have credentials. >> Ken has issues. > Whether Ken has issues or not is irrelevant to whether you have a "STFU" > standard (Hey! Now you can spell out "Shut The f.ck Up" since you're no > longer concerned about fooling Jesus with asterisks in curse words!) which > you apply to others that you fail to apply to yourself in the same context. > That's why "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy. Wayne ... STFU. You have issues, too. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>>>>>Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions >>>>>>any more significant that that of your average houseplant? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wayne ... STFU. You have issues, too. Toad, WTF do you mean by "STFU"? Are you now all of a sudden too timid again to spell out the curse words you've already written? In for a penny, in for a pound, it would seem. And why didn't you address the problem of your own double standard in telling people, timidly, to "STFU" when that standard equally (at least) applies to you as well? WMD >>Whether Ken has issues or not is irrelevant to whether you have a "STFU" >>standard (Hey! Now you can spell out "Shut The f.ck Up" since you're no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wayne ... STFU. You have issues, too. "I post as I please. If you don't like it, tough noogies." Sound familiar? You posted that exact statement just a few hours ago. What's it feel like to be hoisted on your own petard so damn often? WMD >>>Whether Ken has issues or not is irrelevant to whether you have a "STFU" >>>standard (Hey! Now you can spell out "Shut The f.ck Up" since you're no [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >familiar? You posted that exact statement just a few hours ago. What's >it feel like to be hoisted on your own petard so damn often? HOW DARE YOU! How dare you hold Ted to the standards he sets for others! This is UNACCEPTABLE behavior. Don't you know you are to do as Ted says and not as he does? SignatureKent Ner'is vas'hana ter'es. Adronato: Bad news does not grow better with age. >>>>Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions any >>>>more significant that that of your average houseplant? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ken has issues. Ted has nothing between his ears at all. >>>>>>>Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to >>>>>>>get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions > any more significant that that of your average houseplant? See my most recent reply to this thread. The FTC basically ordered Slick 50 to stop advertising all the benefits that they'd claimed for it until such time as they could actually be proven. Clear implication is that they were claiming benefits that didn't exist. Notice how much more watered down Slick 50 advertising is these days? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > See my most recent reply to this thread. The FTC basically ordered > Slick 50 to stop advertising all the benefits that they'd claimed for it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate That implication is reaching a bit, Nate. I talked with a DuPont representative in those days about the micronized Teflon, obtained samples, and tested it in another application for friction reduction. DuPont told me that they were not comfortable with the Slick 50 claims, IIRC. They stopped short of saying it didn't work, but clearly didn't want to be involved. In our tests, it gave some friction reduction but was not the best thing we found. We were constrained to using low concentrations of any test material, not the rather high doses that would be used in a crankcase. Incidentally, we also tested MT-10 which gave some friction reduction when concentrated. (I suspect it is a chloroparaffin, but dont know for sure.) When diluted with oil, its performance dropped below our requirements. In any case, in our application, neither of these two materials gave enough reduction at low concentration to justify their use. What they would have done in crankcase applications, I cannot say. A lot of testing and statistical work would have been necessary to prove, or disprove, anything. Another chemical gave incredible friction reduction, and - as you might suspect - it was similar to materials already incorporated into motor oils. Its composition ruled it our for our application, but its performance was impressive. > Do you have any documented credentials that would make your opinions > any more significant that that of your average houseplant? Don't be rediculous, you can Google and find the DuPont recommendations AGAINST using Teflon inside internal combustion engines with a little effort. This teflon-is-good argument has come up at least a dozen times before in this group. Ted >If that is true, why doesn't DuPont endorse the use of PTFE as an >engine oil additive? You'd think they'd be happy that Slick 50 is >buying their product but they have decidedly distanced themselves from >the whole mess. They haven't stopped selling to them, but that's about >all that they haven't done. When they did stop selling it to be used as an engine treatment, they got sued. They wonderful US courts decided that even if you knew the product was being misrepresented, you couldn't refuse to sell it to someone. What astounds me is that despite the coverage of the story, the product, and the legal matters, people still don't know the real story. Briggs & Stratton's independent study showed premature failure of their engine when Slick 50 was used in them. Go figure. > >> Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to > >> get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is engine oil with tiny bits of teflon added. And it does significantly > reduce friction in the engine. It has *never* been demonstrated that the Teflon particles have any effect on reducing friction or wear in an engine. I defy you to show any credible study demonstrating otherwise. The original folks who sold Slick 50 were smacked on the a.s by the FTC for making such claims. Teflon is made to be used as a surface coating, it was never intended for suspension in liquid as a powder nor does it work in the manner that Slick 50 claimed it did. The only lubricating/friction reduction it provides is by the oil itself. The Teflon expands in heat and clogs the oil filter, all it's likely to do is INCREASE engine wear due to reduced oil flow, possibly even clogging oil passages within the engine itself. DuPont, the makers of Teflon, themselves said the claims were bullshit and wrangled with Slick50, first losing a suit when they refused to supply the PTFE, but finally were successful in a suit to get Slick 50 to take their name off the product. Note on the Slick 50 website there's no mention of "DuPont Teflon". >Slick 50, which has been acquired by and is now a subsidiary of Quaker State, >is engine oil with tiny bits of teflon added. And it does significantly >reduce friction in the engine. But the downside is, it also increases the Research it. The manufacturer of Teflon makes it very clear that is has no benefit to internal combustion engines. There are tons of studies on this, and one interesting aspect is how is circulates through your oil filter. Check it out. >>Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going >>to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before >>the legal machinery catches up to them? > >Why not? Slick 50 still sells, why not a fuel pill? Which brings to mind K&N air filters. In one on-line discussion when K&N was being lauded for providing greater air flow hence better mileage I suggested that one temporarily remove the air filter altogether to provide maximum air flow and then compare their gas milage before and after. I even added the precautionary note not to do this under very dusty air conditions. The K&N devotees immediately jumped back and claimed that if I operated my vehicle even temporarily without an air filter I would immediately trash the engine. Sheesh Old_Timer >Which brings to mind K&N air filters. I saw an interesting independent study a while ago regarding air filters. The best "performance" filters allowed particles through that were caught in other filters. The end result was that yes, K&N does indeed flow better. But only by allowing more particles to pass through. Something that most of the guys I know in the performance scene are aware of already. In fact, most high school kids can figure that out on their own. Some decide that the performance of their engine is more importance than longevity, others decide they'd rather keep their engines a while longer, and lose a couple HP. Depends on how much you ultimately want to pay for that extra performance..... > The local news has been running this story and some questions come to mind. > I notice most of those shown at the local "rally" for this snake oil MLM- > Pyramid scheme seemed to be older folks. Are there really that many > pathologically stupid geezers, in addition to various other brainless > goobers? Geezus, I thought age was supposed to bring wisdom. How can you > be any older than 25 and not recognize a load of crap this obvious? It isn't stupidity, but rather the desire to get rich quick. If you get in early in a viable MLM operation, you can potentially clean up. If you don't get in so early, you might not do so well. (But whatever the case, you have to be MOTIVATED. Don't expect to sit on your @ss and watch the money roll in, because it ain't gonna happen.) > Also, how do people run a scam like this and figure they're not going to > get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before the > legal machinery catches up to them? MLM schemes aren't necessarily scams. If it is structured properly and has a legitimate product -- which the dealers are moving -- it can succeed. But if all the dealers are trying to sign up new dealers, and no one is selling very much product, it will soon collapse. If, as a condition of becoming a dealer, you are required to pay a substantial entry fee and/or buy a large quantity of product, you should be wary. If you join, you will probably end up with a large quantity of penis-enlargement pills (or whatever), while the operators take the money and run and the company goes belly-up. Probably the most successful MLM company is Amway, which to this day STILL has its critics. The basic structure of MLM invites scam artists. Some years ago, there was a fellow who started up an operation called something like "The Ultimate Money Machine". (I believe he was from somewhere around Philadelphia.) His "product" consisted of a single "motivational" cassette tape which sold for something like $300. The authorities found that the operation was nothing more than a thinly-disguised pyramid scheme, and he went to jail. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > > The local news has been running this story and some questions come to mind. > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Theodore A. Kaldis > kaldis@worldnet.att.net What MLM operation isn't kind of shady on some level? The only one I'm aware of is Amsoil, and their marketing scheme (as well as their refusal to submit their products for API certification) turns off a lot of potential buyers. I guess Mary Kay, Tupperware, and Avon are somewhat MLM-ish as well, but it seems to me that most consumers really prefer to buy their consumer goods through established retailers, either brick-and-mortar or online, that can stand behind their product should a problem arise, rather than out of their friends' garages. nate > What MLM operation isn't kind of shady on some level? I wouldn't know. Define "shady". > The only one I'm aware of is Amsoil, and their marketing scheme (as well as > their refusal to submit their products for API certification) turns off a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > brick-and-mortar or online, that can stand behind their product should a > problem arise, rather than out of their friends' garages. As do I. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > Probably the most successful MLM company is Amway, which to this day STILL > has its critics. The basic structure of MLM invites scam artists. Some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > operation was nothing more than a thinly-disguised pyramid scheme, and he > went to jail. SCAMway is a complete and utter fraud. I've prepared and/or reviewed returns for scores of Amway distributors over the years, and I have yet to see even *one* who has made an actual profit selling product. Ever. The margins are too small (because most of the gross is eaten up by the upline), and the primary competition is grocery stores (which can make a profit on a 25-30% gross margin). Motivational speakers, otoh, make out like bandits. SCAMway was modeled on evilgelical Christianity, in which there is no profit in selling product (practicing it), but massive profit in selling distributorships (preaching). [re: Amway] > The margins are too small (because most of the gross is eaten up by the > upline), and the primary competition is grocery stores (which can make a > profit on a 25-30% gross margin). [...] I'm not so sure that profit margins are that high (though perhaps on non-food grocery items they might be). But grocery stores generally operate on very small profit margins (1%-3%), on tremendous volume. SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > [re: Amway] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > grocery items they might be). But grocery stores generally operate on very > small profit margins (1%-3%), on tremendous volume. They are. Don't believe me? Look it up. http://www.census.gov/svsd/retlann/view/table7.txt. >> [re: Amway] >>> The margins are too small (because most of the gross is eaten up by the >>> upline), and the primary competition is grocery stores (which can make a >>> profit on a 25-30% gross margin). [...] >> I'm not so sure that profit margins are that high (though perhaps on non- >> food grocery items they might be). But grocery stores generally operate >> on very small profit margins (1%-3%), on tremendous volume. > They are. Don't believe me? Look it up. > http://www.census.gov/svsd/retlann/view/table7.txt. So are we comparing apples and oranges here? What is the difference between "gross margin" and "net margin"? And, oh yes, "profit margin"? SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net >>>[re: Amway] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So are we comparing apples and oranges here? Not at all. You start with gross margin, and examine your operation costs. Some are fixed; some are variable. All things being equal, the more you sell, the more you net. (Calculations on the basis of profit margins require that you consider more variables; it's best to keep the analysis as simple as possible.) If you can't sell enough to cover your fixed plus variable costs, you lose money ... and if half your gross margin goes up the upline, you're going to require much higher sales volume to clear a profit. If you want to know exactly how these scammers are able to recruit so many pathologically stupid people, just scan back through some of fiveiron's posts on this thread, and you will realize that the future is bright for such scammers........ > If you want to know exactly how these scammers are able to recruit so many > pathologically stupid people, just scan back through some of fiveiron's > posts on this thread, and you will realize that the future is bright for > such scammers........ Now you've done it! We'll probably now see a post on this very topic from that distinguished imbecile. > The local news has been running this story and some questions come to > mind. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to get shut down? Do they just figure they'll make a ton 'o cash before > the legal machinery catches up to them? Unfortunately scams like this are nothing new. Read old Mechanix or Science Illustrated magazines from 50 years back and look at all of the gas saving products designed to separate you from your money. > How can you be any older than 25 and not recognize a load of crap > this obvious? Lots of people actually believe that government regulation is effective and prevents fraudulent claims of this sort, so "they couldn't say it if it wasn't true", right? Those are the same people who believe in the fuel pills. SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com "Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message > Lots of people actually believe that government regulation is > effective and prevents fraudulent claims of this sort, so "they > couldn't say it if it wasn't true", right? > > Those are the same people who believe in the fuel pills. The napthalene (moth balls) crap goes back DECADES. It IS a fuel, but doesn't do anything special, and burns with a sooty black residue. Worst of all, it has been classified in recent years as being a serious hazard to health, and is reportable in MSD sheets. (Hexane is too, for that matter.) It is a surprise you can still buy them for repelling moths. Slick 50 is a different situation. DuPont stayed away because, IMHO, they did not want to be associated with a potentially litigious situation. Apparently some early formulations of compounds like this worked very well, and I think you can find this info with a web search. Slick 50 was sued for making claims that they had not tested and substantiated. To say that the product doesn't work, or that it has been associated with blocking of filters or oil ports, would also have to be substantiated by real data. I haven't seen any data of this type that I would go to court with. But, when there are still people out there that will buy freaking magnets to put on their gas lines, it is proof that America is indeed in deep caca. > But, when there are still people out there that will buy freaking magnets > to put on their gas lines, it is proof that America is indeed in deep caca. If you think it's bad here, you should see what sort of superstitions people buy into in some other countries. (And I'm NOT talking about the 3rd World here.) SignatureTheodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net > Slick 50 is a different situation. DuPont stayed away because, IMHO, they > did not want to be associated with a potentially litigious situation. They didn't "stay away", they publicly stated the claims were horseshit and got into a huge legal fight over it with Slick50. First refusing to supply the PTFE and finally getting their name taken off the product. > Apparently > some early formulations of compounds like this worked very well, and I think > you can find this info with a web search. DuPont has stated there is no such benefit to be had. If there was, I'm sure they'd be happy to make big bucks backing it. If you believe otherwise, by all means provide a link. "Spob" <pongespob_paresquants@xyahoo.com> wrote in message news:iqwbg.4417 > If you believe otherwise, by all means provide a link. I went through this once before, but have no inclination to do it again. I would like to see your link in which DuPont says the product or application is 'horseshit'. That would be most enlightening. Years ago I tried the material, Slick 50, in my engines and had no ill effects. It never plugged a filter, nor did it plug any oil passages in my case. If properly dispersed in a product or in motor oil, the particles are so small that they will past through many filters. (Now, particles can reform into larger particles, and in such a case, they could be filtered out, and COULD cause plugging.) Heck, I even tried the Amoco Graphite oil. Nasty stuff, I definitely did see an improvement in one of my cars (A big block Olds, with a tight overheating engine and a gullet for gasoline.) Improved the gas mileage about 2-3 mpg in that very special application. Teflon CAN be burnished onto the surface of metal to form an invisible film which is water repellant and reasonably robust. Whether the film is beneficial to the lubrication process, I cannot say. (In our tests, it functioned something like a very thin plastic coating. It was interesting in that it prevented corrosive attack fairly efficiently.) This I DO know, because I and my group performed the tests. It would be reaching to say that the phenomenon we observed has any effect, positive or negative, in an engine. And I dont use the product in my cars today. I trust the lubricating oils I choose, and I change the oil often. Maintaining my engines in this way, I don't have early wear problems, and certainly not sludging. So for me, Slick 50 is not needed, and would therefore be....money wasted. > "Spob" <pongespob_paresquants@xyahoo.com> wrote in message news:iqwbg.4417 > > If you believe otherwise, by all means provide a link. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > application > is 'horseshit'. That would be most enlightening. Along with the following that can be found all over the net: 'DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said, "Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines." ' I.e, the polite, corporate-speak way of saying "this stuff is nuthin' but snakeoil horseshit". More importantly they said it with the huge expenditure of time, effort, and legal fees to stop selling PTFE to Slick50 in the first place and failing that, to get their name completely disassociated from the product. >I went through this once before, but have no inclination to do it again. > >I would like to see your link in which DuPont says the product or >application >is 'horseshit'. That would be most enlightening. http://www.msgroup.org/TIP043.html http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Slick_501.html#SLICK_005 http://www.carbibles.com/snakeoil.html *yawn* Ever heard of Google? > >I went through this once before, but have no inclination to do it again. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ever heard of Google? Yes, and I have also heard of 'horseshit'.. Have you? >Yes, and I have also heard of 'horseshit'.. Have you? Absolutely. It's marketed in a bottle, and has "Slick 50" written on it. Anyone with any real knowledge of an internal combustion engine can easily make that translation. >> How can you be any older than 25 and not recognize a load of crap >> this obvious? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Those are the same people who believe in the fuel pills. Or believed the WMD lies and sent their stooge children off to die for the Criminal Bu$h Mob, eh? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.