Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
^^^ I would be cafeful with that statement. jk_636 has been the poster-child of blind fanboyism in the face of empirical evidence. Read around on some of the torn filter threads before you hook your name to his/hers.
Empirical evidence? You mean all the filters I have posted that are tear free? All the Purolator products I have used that havent failed? All the filters that should have exploded and destroyed my engine years ago? Oh wait...I forgot that the only time evidence on here is
empirical is when
you are the one who provides it.
It isn't blind fanboyism to support a product that has never failed you. It is absurd however, to "caution" a member to not "hook" their name to anothers. Grow up and get a life. This school yard nonsense has got to stop.
Skanky, no one here should be cautioned against engaging in conversation to any member on this site. This site is here for enthusiasts of all sides to come together and discuss/debate the merits or flaws of automotive products. Those that advocate ostracising other members are nothing more than petty, arrogant or just plain dumb. If we all agreed this site would be a terribly boring place. Imagine, we would all just be sitting around, talking about nothing but how great Fram Ultras...I mean...wait a second...
Yes, when dozens and dozens of BITOG members report a similar failure with pictures to the point where someone actually keeps track of the failure as evidence... yes, that is the definition of empirical evidence! We are observing and recording a phenomenon!
Quote:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by
observation or experimentation.
This data is recorded.
More over, you constant push those with failed filters towards ad absurdum arguments. No one claims that the engine failed, but rather that paying money for a filter that does not filter is... well, a waste. I would not buy an oil that does not protect my engine or buy mosquitoes spray that does not repel mosquitoes. A torn filter is a failed filter and I am not buying a product that can not do what it only designed is intended to do.
We are not claiming that every filter fails. Some filters are more prone to failure (cans with metal seams, particularly for import models) but other filters have failed too. This is what the data record (ie the spreadsheet) allows us to determine. Meanwhile, you dismiss and defend the product in the face of documented failure after failure. You distort Purolator's language and suggest that it was the "operators" error for going over 3K miles on the filter which is contrary to the entire industry. You keep pushing the "frampire" argument (which obviously does not apply to me). Thus, you obsession with defending and promoting a particular brand (purolator) to the point of obsession becomes the exact definition of a "fanboy". Thus, any "new-ish" member to the site that says your ideas are reasonable should be warned that they are linking themselves to a discredited/minority opinion linked to obsessed and biased opinion. However, the response provided by the op suggest that fanboys cluster anyways.
