[eschaider]

Your words are what they are Mark. In post #20 you begin your unprovoked attack with the following commentary;

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

Well it was certainly complete. Factual is altogether different.

I think describing it as an opinion would be more accurate.

If you disagreed with me you could have easily spoken directly to me and challenged what you disagreed with. Instead you chose to use the verbal equivalent of look what foolishness I have uncovered in an attempt to stiffle further commentary.

From there I invited you to discuss the facts you maintain are lacking in veracity. Which you respond to with the following post that lacked any specificity.

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

Be happy to. The comment you made about balancing are utter nonsense.

You are also entitled to post your opinions, but don't pretend they are facts. You'll just case [sic] people to get disappointed.

Balancing is not near as precise as you seem to think it is.

Of course, you follow that with the gratuitous slight suggesting impaired cognitive capabilities attributable to pot use in college.

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

It was the only thing most of the potheads had down pat.....

Did you think that would somehow dissuade me from my factual argument? When I return to my request for factual misrepresentations you respond with yet another opinion instead of a factual representation of what you disagree with.

Again you assume a verbal attack without factual representation of what you are disagreeing with but just indignation over the fact someone would challenge your knowledge/authority on the topic.

When I remind you that you are posting an opinion/statement and ask you to elaborate,

Originally Posted by eschaider

You just posted an opinion/statement. Please elaborate on what was nonsense.

You finally, blurt out your two big misrepresentations with a pontification that would make the best snake oil salesman jealous;

Originally Posted by Mark O'Neal

1> Balancing to within one gram. Pretty much no one does that. Even if you do, balance is an estimate. Once oil starts flying around no one really knows what that bob-weight is within a gram........or 20.

2> If you were to balance a rotator on our machine, then go re-do the bob-weights and run it on another machine, you would get a different result. Every time.

It's nowhere near as precise as you fantasize. And yes, I'm certain, having done tens of thousands of balance jobs (and engine builds) over the decades.

In the next post, I proceed to show you how you are wrong about the 1 gram balance tolerance and also the tens of thousands of balance jobs. You intentionally chose to structure your sentence as if you were personally responsible for that work product when in fact, if it was true, it was the work product output of a firm. Even as the work product output of a firm it reains suspect.

I believe the misrepresentation was intentional, in actual fact, to add false credibility to a fallacious position you put yourself in, not realizing you would be challenged.

What you are behaving like is a close approximation to some of the keyboard commandos that occupy the social media space. You rely on overwhelming those who disagree and if they persist you attempt to bully them into submission.

That kind of behavior has no place on or in this forum. If you have ideas that you think have merit for the readership, God Bless, let's table them for everyone's benefit. When someone else does the same thing if you don't agree or don't understand, challenge the logic or procedure and ask questions to clarify it — not just for yourself but for everyone in the thread.

Save the snide commentary for the social media space it simply does not fit here. When you post please choose to post in a manner that reflects something you actually did rather than taking credit for the work product of a business as if you personally produced it. Those sort of credentials do not enhance your argument, in fact they diminish it.

Your ideas should be able to stand on their own merit and not require artificial support mechanisms. I did not know you were part of CHP. Although I have no feelings one way or the other for the firm, I suspect you probably have meaningful commentary and experience that could be helpful for any number of members on the site. Why not share it in a collaborative environment rather than a confrontational and hostile environment.

Can we agree to do that?