Re: [MV] Slick 50 revisited

Colin Brookes (
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:15:08 +1200

In message <>, "Mark R."
<> writes
>This article appeared in today's paper.
>In a July 1996 complaint, the FTC said Slick 50's claims that, compared
>to motor oil alone, it reduces engine wear, lengthens engine life and
>provides a host of other benefits were DECEPTIVE and UNPROVEN......"

note the word 'unproven' !!!

>There is currently class action lawsuits against Slick 50 for the damage
>it has done to vehicles.

large numbers of people make claims against manufacturers in the US all
the time, mostly frivolous. And many that are found on completeion are
not necessarily properly proven.

>Hopefully no one on this list that is using Slick 50 has had any damage
>done to their MV and I hope you discontinue its use before there is
>damage done.

unfortunately you do not understand the use of the English language !
'Unproven that it does not', does not mean that it does cause damage.
The same as the verdicts for the IRA terrorists (known as the Birmingham
6 and the Guildford 4), in the British courts. They were found 'not
guilty in a court of law'. Which has been mis-interpreted by many as
meaning innocent. They were only found not guilty by misused court
proceedures, which clever lawyers regularly concoct on both sides of the
In my previous post on the subject, I stated that I had proven long term
use of PTFE additives in the Ferret, Dodge WC63, and Daimler Dingo of my
own. Whether someone rightly or wrongly is attempting to attribute a
fault on their vehicle to a PTFE additive has no bearing whatsoever on
my statement. Nor does a statement 'that it is unproven', to the
particular body making the statement.

Colin Brookes
Invicta Military Vehicle Preservation Society (IMPS)

To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <>.