On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:08:16 -0400, wrote:


I wasn't addressing or offering my opinions regarding the qualities of
WD-40 as a lubricant. (I did that earlier, feel free to read them at
your leisure). The only thing I was addressing in my responses to you
was the quality of your source. It was an 11 YO posting by a person
who had never analysed the substance being discussed in this thread.
I'm sure there are better sources to help you substantiate your
opinion- which, again, I'm not addressing here.

Let me put it another way...If I ask an expert on Jaguars to tell me
about a Porche, and he says "Well, I've never analysed a Porche but if
it's like a Jaquar it might have a 300-horsepower, 4.2-liter engine
and it might cost about $70,000" then I'll probably say "Thank you"
and go find an expert on Porches. I don't see the value in using the
Jaquar expert to substantiate my opinion of a Porche if he is merely
speculating on the subject matter.

The point of Mr Hamilton's opinion is that he didn't have to have
exacting specifics of what WD-40 is. He had enough information
and enough education to draw the correct conclusions on WD-40
even if he didn't have the exact recipe in front of him.

In other words, he's incompetent. If he was a competent professional
chemist he would never offer a judgement without having the facts.