Lets Help Greg Cole

[Jim Pemberton]

Jaime, it seems like we've hijacked Greg's thread; sorry about that Greg.

If you'd like me to review how to set your test up, in 30 days you might be seeing what I'm seeing in my test, but if your products are different you might not. But either way you'll know what your "stuff" did.

I've got to get my nylon test started this week, and am a couple of weeks into my olefin test. But as I said, the results I saw on the polyester did conflict with a great deal of conventional wisdom, so I have to see if I can repeat it or its a fluke.

I know you really would like me to say "it works" or "it doesn't", but then that defeats the purpose. You can find lots of suppliers, instructors, and cleaners who will assure you "it works". You can find a few suppliers, instructors, and cleaners who will assure you "it doesn't work".

Most will even tell you that they've tested it for themselves.

So that's why you need to run your own tests.

Sorry to disappoint you Jaime, but at least we're on a first name basis now!

 

[Art Kelley]

I'm with Jaime, Jim. It would be extremely useful to everyone here to read your results as you have such an impeccable reputation in the industry. I doubt anyone would think you have ulterior motives.

 

[Dolly Llama]

hey, I'm up to the challenge of portys at 20 paces agin' that ornery varmint Crowley

but in order for me to do ANYTHING that resembles WORK while I'm goofing off in Nashville, he'll have to pay for for my hotel room, green fees (WITH CART) and steak dinner WHEN (not "if") I thoroughly trounce Da Boy with my superior skills and knowledge.... 8)



:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:




..L.T.A.

 

[Willy P]

I was called an alarmist by somebody recently ( NOT Jim) and I was not grasping the situation. Simply put, I'm paid to give my customer a healthy home, not an ongoing chemistry experiment that fills my pockets with hush money .



http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org ... gard/1.asp

 

[Pmatte]

I paid the photographer the day of the photo shoot. If your wife was there I don't remember her and it really isn't my problem if she didn't get paid by the photographer. It isn't my cusomters problem if I don't pay my helper and it wouldn't be my customers problem if I didn't. If she got screwed out of $20 bucks- that is between her and the photographer. Since it was 16 years ago - perhaps she should get over it? First I've heard of this - but at least now I have a good story!

The fact that you are suggesting that I change something that I have spent millions branding is absurd and shows how little you know about marketing.
The site is new- both procarpet.net and callprocarpet.com were created in the last few months.
For the record- I didn't ask for this post to be put up. In fact I didn't join Mikeys board until I discovered I was being torn apart and decided to answer. No soap Box - but certainly will defend myself... Best of luck.

-Dude,you are a dumbass,I never once mentioned that my wife isn't over it,I mentioned the photog thing because its an old picture ,nor did I mention anything at all about your website.You,mentioned something about my site and then I said mine needs updating. You are such a a frigging tard and there is a difference between defending oneself and acting like you know it all. Do I need to spell it out for you Forrest?..............I guess so, your DA line about "if you're not dry cleaning berber,you don't know how to clean" or some stupid statement along those lines. You better get back to your short-yellow bus because that village is missing an idiot!

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Berber is a construction STYLE, not a fiber. Thus it is often made of wool, nylon, or other synthetic fibers like olefin (polypropylene). It will thus have the cleaning characteristics of the fiber used.

Be careful about always combining the identity of berber with olefin just because so much olefin carpet is made in the berber construction style.

 

[truckmount girl]

Berber is a construction STYLE, not a fiber. Thus it is often made of wool, nylon, or other synthetic fibers like olefin (polypropylene). It will thus have the cleaning characteristics of the fiber used.

Be careful about always combining the identity of berber with olefin just because so much olefin carpet is made in the berber construction style.

Very true. In real world USA application 99% of it is synthetic and of that 90% is olefin or olefin blend. So in GENERAL discussions it's safe to discuss olefin when discussing cleaning berber. BTW - in my home, most of the carpet is 17 year old olefin berber, but I have a small area that is a conversion of part of the garage which was done with a freebie scrap of polyester berber....man is that some real junk!

Take care,
Lisa

 

[randy]

Berber is a construction STYLE, not a fiber. Thus it is often made of wool, nylon, or other synthetic fibers like olefin (polypropylene). It will thus have the cleaning characteristics of the fiber used.

Be careful about always combining the identity of berber with olefin just because so much olefin carpet is made in the berber construction style.

Stockwell you are too fast man. I was reading this thread and wondering why this wasn't being mentioned.

Most of the Berber out there is OLEFIN, which many cleaners mistake for Wool. Nothing like a quick burn test to sort it out. Regardless cleaning it is a breeze. While we VLM more then anything, on Olefin I would much prefer to HWE with a Steamin demon. Great results every time and it's pretty easy work.

 

[The Great Oz]

I was called an alarmist by somebody recently ( NOT Jim) and I was not grasping the situation. Simply put, I'm paid to give my customer a healthy home, not an ongoing chemistry experiment that fills my pockets with hush money .



http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org ... gard/1.asp

To continue the sidetrack even further:

"The Chemical Industry Archives is a project of the Environmental Working Group."

Willy, believing information produced by the EWG is akin to getting your world news from a comedy show. What they publish is complete bunk. They exist to make money for their owners by spreading scare stories about common chemicals. Scotchgard and Teflon have been real money-makers for them.

From the book The Good, the Bad, the Spin, about people being more willing to believe negative stories than positive, and related to a New York Times article about drinking water:

"...It turns out what EWG does is not research, not subject to the benefits of peer-review and apparently has little basis in reality. But that doesn’t stop the group from being well-funded and well connected.

EWG has a history of inflammatory public relations tactics that, generally, appear to be well received by mainstream news outlets.

What sets apart this situation was the New York Times using the Environmental Working Group’s data for its story, despite warnings from others, such as the American Council on Science and Health, about EWG’s repeated scare tactics and misleading claims..."