Welcome to the discussion. I doubt you'll be flamed - I find thoughtful, respectful and insightful contributions may be challenged, but in the spirit of discussion.

There there are those who come on here like an angry middle schooler, calling names and throwing tantrums.

Glad to have your contribution.

Likewise. Your "semi" counterpoint is thoughtful not inciteful. Respect your opinion on this stuff.

Long post on my part, and lack of clarify on a point: I think GFG removed the insurer/agent name to avoid complaints from the Agent a potential zillion calls from Distributor's alone. Of course, it has it's 'credibility benefits' in the form of "can't be verified so can't be disproved." Double edged sword!

It has been suggested the patent is international in NZ, therefore "does not apply" to the US. Actually I think the World resolves such disputes, vies a vie Nikken vs. Amway over magnets. Nikken had the Japan patent and Amway owned similar in US. Truth is, both apply - and don't necessarilty threaten each other if they were designed in parallel. At least to my understanding.

It occured to me that we can't find the patent because GFG was purchased and renamed from a prior company (before the affiliate program), which means unless we want a trip to the county (in the state of) origin's clerk, we may not find it - No former name, no information for patent. Not paying a P.I. until this stuff stops working. ;)

*inciteful mean "to incite riot" - your posts have incite. ::) Apologies.

Except, of course, you're whole attempt to correct me is based on your using an incorrect spelling.  I said "insightful", not "Inciteful" - I know the difference!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insightful

I humlby submit you are incorrect. The tone of my post was not corrective whatsoever. Read my 2nd reply - I was correcting **my own** use of idiom. On a second glance, with little sleep, I thought I was accusing you of incite to riot - rather than having insight, which was my intent. So, the post backfired - now you think I am correcting you, but my attempt was to prevent confusion of words and hard feelings on your part. Massive fail on me.

If you are stating in this forum that I don't know the difference, then I expect tactful and quick retraction of the accusation. Why would I post a correction of my own accord, pointing to my post rather than yours, to correct you Good Sir? Please know I meant "inciteful" when I said it. Your posts are thoughtful and are not flame, present post under interpretive scrutiny. :)

Normally, I would edit my post but whomever Moderates/Admins this forum has chosen a BBS system that does not support editing of posts, or allowing the function in permissions. Frankly,, I blame him or her for the tiff, mainly because if I had the ability to correct my posts - there would be no argument . But I am sure this person will tell me to preview before posting. Who here hasn't had an idea at 1am that couldn't wait? Perhaps sleep would help.

My reference to your negative adjectives (referencing the word not your attitude) was solely to clarify for readers: Your reference to lack of tact is to Angel, not GFG's refusal to provide a patent (which presents other challenges best sorted by our previous exchanges).

If for some reason you felt corrected, my apologies - none of what you posted needs ANY correction. Literal blog genious at the least.

L. O. L.

My apologies.  Now I understand your 2 posts together.  I thought post 2 was the one correcting me and instructing me as to the meaning of 'incite'.  Now I get it.

Also, no, I am not specifically critical of the company's refusal to provide a patent - I suspect some combination of other company or individual name, scientist patent, etc. and other corporate agreements to keep some level of anonymity for individuals are at play.

However, it still puts nothing but doubt into the minds of those evaluating the business. It's patented? But you can't show us and we can't find it in public documents?  Not that I don't trust the company, but I don't.

Don't worry, EsquireJon, we're cool.

I can believe the part about cleaning the injectors, that makes sense, the part about the emissions is hard to believe, I did see a post card from a Rep, it claimed to reduce carbon by 16 lbs per gallon, but gas weights 6 lbs.

The main focus seems to be on buying cheaper gas, Newer cars with OBD II use the O2 sensor to measure unburnt fuel so I can't see much use.

I did like that the FTC says about fuel grades. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut12.shtm

Sai99 your point about emissions is highly inaccurate.   

And this is why (taken from fueleconomy.gov):

you will need to be tanked to promote envirotabs it is not exclusive to greenfoot global