[GoudyL]

That is, unless you care to share your expert knowledge of wax manufacturing. I'm very anxiousl to learn why you call carnauba a meaningless ingredient when it serves as the core of EVERY single car wax on the market.

I said that the claim of "most carnauba" is vague/meaningless in the context of product(s) that is a mixture of functional ingredients.

That's because is a product that is a mixture of functional ingredients, it is the relative ratio of the ingredients to each other that is important, and not the absolute amounts.

If someone want's to say Carnauba is the predominent wax in the Zymol formula, that's fine. It could very well be.

Your statement that Carnauba is the core of every single car wax on the market is silly. There are any number of synthetic waxes that contain no carnauba, to say nothing of waxes that are based on other wax ingredients such as Polyethylene/PAO waxes, montan waxes, and silicone waxes/resins, PDMS etc.

Your "guess" isn't a fact. It's just a thinly veiled opinion. And it was established that the 61% is by volume. Therefore, I would expect that a 22oz tube of Vintage contains just over 13 oz's of pure No1 Brazillian white carnauba.

Link to where it was shown that ZV is 61% by volume of the entire formula?

IMHO it's more likely to be 61% of the wax composition, and that wax composition is a fraction of the total formula, compared to things like water, solvents, silicones etc.

And throwing around your familiarity with fine chemical engineering isn't?

It's more relavent, and grounded in reality.

Could you at least acknowledge that there are OTHER posssible motivations for buying the product? Or are all Zymol users just manifesting this "pathological need"

There could be other motivations, for example the untrue belief that zymol is measurably better than other competing waxes in its class.

There's that jealousy again. You're presenting your opinion "people with money don't know how to act with it" as fact.

Just ask the "Dean of Wall St", Bernie Madoff.

And since you're not rich, you must not be as smart as they are.

And if you're so rich, why aren't you smart?

Less, looking at this from the other side, you appear to doing a great job of projective identification claiming that other people suffer from your repressed insecurities about wealth, intelligence, and penis size. You are acting this out, by claiming that people who don't share your views about your idealised car wax are resentful haters.

Also a good argument could be made that at the extreme tail end, very smart people are less likely to be rich, since they are attracted to fields/professions that don't pay much/have much opportunity for wealth creation such as the sciences/humanities and then teaching/research positions therein.

Examples don't necessarily explain general truths or trends.

But they do just fine for knocking down theories that can't explain them.