RE: oil additives

["Lewis, Gary M" <Gary.Lewis@West.Boeing.com>]

> The decision against Dupont involved what is called "restraint of
> trade." You can't refuse to sell a product to someone just because 
> there is a possibility they might use it for a purpose other than 
> what you intended it for.
> 
This is one of those contradictary laws that irritates me.  If somebody
files a class action lawsuit against Slick 50, you can bet that Dupont,
along with anybody else who is in the 'stream of commerce' that put his
product on the market (Pep-boy, Walmart, the trucking company, etc),
will be named (read: sued).  

I don't blame Dupont for their postion.  If they think that PFTE is
useless in car engines, they would probably still sell it.  If they
think it is Harmful, they wouldn't.  They obviously think it is
potentially harmful.

This is one of those burden of proof things.  Nearly impossible to
prove.  Similar to trying to get this list to agree on a brand of oil.
Difficult.  But logic says that if Dupont is willing to forego millions
in profit on this product, something must be amiss.

OK, one more time.  If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

*********************************************************************
Gary M. Lewis
1986 5000   CS Turbo 5 Speed   195,000 miles 1.8 bar
*********************************************************************