you just want to stir the pot and be right clearly you can see weve outsmart you with cold hard facts here so stop
You know, your comments would be easier to understand if you learned basic punctuation and grammar before you graduate to 'outsmarting' people. >_>you just want to stir the pot and be right clearly you can see weve outsmart you with cold hard facts here so stop
I'm sorry, but you can't talk to people like this. It's extremely rude and inappropriate. If you don't like other people's point of view—or the facts in this case—then while I understand that, it's just too bad. You have no right to be aggressive towards other people's polite free speech and perfectly reasonable use of a forum designed exactly for this. If you don't have anything friendly or constructive to add to a discussion, then please just don't comment rather than be aggressive and sour the environment. There's a lot of good conversation still to be had.You know you are really starting to piss me off why don't you just get out of here........ And stop pissing people off don't worry about my typing the only thing i want you to understand is to Stop.
AMENVacuum Facts - Briguy is right, carpet extraction with hot water and soap is the only method approved by the Carpet and Rug Institute in North America. I think that fact alone PROVES your information is false! And to be quite frank, you're a bit of a joke in the collecting community and on YouTube! It's about time you realize your time has expired and you need to go away.
And who are you? Some schmuck on the internet with a cordless Dyson and computer to make fancy graphs that look nice but are full of nonsense. What qualifications do you have in the industry that gives you the ability to sufficiently claim they're biased or their methods are "unscientific"? Thats not to say theres no possbility of bias in the CRI but again you're making bold claims for just some rando who makes videos in his living room.Secondly, the CRI holds no credibility with me. They’re industry-owned, goal-focused, and their output is not peer-reviewed. There’s evidence of bias, unconvincing testing, and it’s not always science-based or consistent with the formal industry standards
amen agreedOh Alan, our Administrator....Look, can you PLEASE ban Vacuum Facts and remove him from the forum? He is trying my patience here reading his uttterly RUDE remarks! And I am sure most of us in this conversation feel the same way. He needs to go NOW.
As someone who has dabbled in carpet cleaning, and who actually owns commercial equipment and uses ONLY professional chemicals, I can tell you, anyone with an even minute understanding of the science and mechanics of how carpet comes clean, you don't know much about much. Do you have ANY idea what dish soap does in carpet? Do you have any idea how much of an abject pain in the schmeldie it is to get even a small amount of that residue out? Do you have any clue how much people charge for this service?????I’ve often found that people think carpet washers are a good approach to stains. For (real-world) messes and stains, a simple damp cloth rinsed in dish detergent and microsponge treatment is the cheapest method I’ve experienced that also gets the best results. I’ve completely cleaned the worst thick and dirty, greasy chain oil patches using this method. Carpet washers don’t clean as effectively on the surface and actually make a bigger mess deeper in the pile. They’re marketed as a silver bullet, and people fall for it, but they’re a bit of a scam for the most part from what I’ve measured. (Incidentally, there are good physical reasons for this covered in this lecture when discussing carpet backing and airspeed as a function of pile depth.)
I evidenced this beyond all reasonable doubt a few years ago and forgot how poignant the video was until I rewatched it in response to a recent thread. I’ve made a playlist of different methods of cleaning and examples. There’s also a playlist showing professional cleaning using microsponges.
Yes, but please enlighten me anyway with strong, fact-checkable evidence that also directly addresses the clear video evidence provided of the solutions proposed above. I've not seen any convincing evidence of the allusions you make and would happily change my thoughts on the matter if you could provide some that was fact-checkable and didn't merely rely on wordy anecdotes of subjective 'experience', which are never convincing. I suspect you may have misunderstood comments about dish soap; you obviously don't put the stuff neat and directly on a carpet.Do you have ANY idea what dish soap does in carpet?
I evidenced this beyond all reasonable doubt a few years ago and forgot how poignant the video was until I rewatched it in response to a recent thread. I’ve made a playlist of different methods of cleaning and examples. There’s also a playlist showing professional cleaning using microsponges.
So you think a cloth, sponge, and some dish soap are going to clean this carpet? Oh my...
Typical household messes include ground in dirt from pets and kids, spills that are sometimes greasy, vomit and sometimes pee when pets are sick, etc. Every rain storm the dogs track in all kinds of mud and rocks. They drink from the water bowl and drip water from their mouths over a 15 foot radius. They lay on the floor and drool. My old female Husky-Malamute Karly, aka Miss Muddy Paws, used to leave a dirty spot on the carpet around her doggie bed because she would always lay half on and half off the bed. She was a digger and always dirty no matter how often we bathed her. The carpet in the hallway of our first home had so much foot and paw traffic, even taking out shoes off ( Asian household ) it had what I called a Habitrail of ground in dirt down the middle no amount of spot cleaning would clean. I vacuumed multiple times a week but that was not enough to stay ahead of the dirt and to be honest it was cheap builders grade deep pile carpet. Every six months or so I would have to bring a professional in with high temperature and high pressure steam to clean the carpets. Eventually we replaced it all with tile.Like, how could you make a mistake like this? It's almost as though you just haven't read, let alone understood the very first post that you even cited. There's clear evidence here of wilful and deliberate refusal to understand intent. I'm not even going to bother responding to this by way of correction, because I literally have absolutely no confidence you are amenable to reason or thoughtful consideration of the whole intention of this post. Many other people have managed to realise it was in reference to typical, household messes, as all the videos clearly showed, and not, as I even explicitly said in my previous post, "severe commercial abuse and neglect" that you've exclusively and bizarrely fixated on and doesn't represent anything you'd get in any respectable home. And people wonder why I despair at times...
Indeed they do—I direct you to the very first post...again. If you're suggesting this is equivalent to the long term abuse shown in that video, then this is at least absurdly consistent with your suggestion Panasonic invented conical brushbars to remove hair, which you were completely unable to defend reputably after it was shown to be inconflict with evidence, and trashed your credibility on factual matters going forward. Sorry.Typical household messes include ground in dirt from pets and kids, spills that are sometimes greasy, vomit and sometimes pee when pets are sick, etc.
It's unclear what evidence you've used to conclude this about my personal life. It appears to be as weak as the 'evidence' you used to justify your claim Panasonic invented conical brushbars to remove hair, shown to be in conflict with evidence.You don't have a family with pets and kids bringing the outdoors indoors, you don't own a home, you know literally nothing about the everyday messes most of us have to try to stay ahead of with our vacuums and carpet washers.
Actually, what I say is evidenced—which is why I said it. It appears as though you've ignored literally everything provided to support my claims—consistent with history at least. No one respectable would say this if they had bothered to look first, because it conflicts very harsly with what was shown.What you say means nothing to us.
This is the kind of unfriendliness and hostility that just doesn't belong here. If you don't like someone's opinions on a platform designed to express them, too bad. If you don't like that your factual claims are evidenced to be nonsense, too bad. Naysayers never engage in meaningful discourse or provide evidence to support their position on factual matters because they're too busy crying and lynching.We sincerely wish you would find somewhere else to post.