Getting the DTD set up and Question 1
09 May 2010
Below is what the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate has worked through so far. I'm going to begin making blog entries for each interaction. This first post is a summary of the exchanges so far.
The page for the actual question will only be updated as we come to an agreement and progress on the question itself is made. The blog for each question will be a record of how we arrived at the agreement.
The first question below is the original Question 1 proposed by the forum.
Given the nature of wax, being a viscous substance with a melting point above 140 f and the properties of being hydrophobic how does wax not build up within dreads?
There are a few problems with the initial question.
1) there are many types of wax, each with their own melting points.
2) I believe that all waxes are hydrophobic but I'm not sure of this.
3) We have no indication here of how the wax is to be used so that must be defined as well.
I'm going to modify the question and then answer it. Please let me know if there are any objections to the changes I've made. Here's the modified version:
Given the nature of DreadHead Dread wax which is hydrophobic (meaning it repels water), with a melting point that's assumed to be over 140F how can it not build up within dreads when it's used as recommended by DreadHeadHQ.com?
This second version of the question was not accepted. I don't believe the reason for it's rejection was specified but I agreed to review a new version of the question.
"I pulled up the forum and noticed you guys already had changes you wanted to make to the reworded question. That's not a problem at all. Make sure you all agree and when you have one you really like you can post it to the Dreadlocks Treaty Facebook. If I think it's clear and works I'll go ahead and answer it as you proposed it. If not I'll make the changes I think are necessary and post it for your approval. I won't start answering it until I have your approval."
The following version of the question was posted to be reviewed:
Since the main ingredients in DreadheadHQ wax are beeswax and microcrystalline (petroleum-refined) wax, and the melting point of beeswax starts at about 140F, how can it be claimed that your wax washes out in hot water, and does not solidify or re-harden inside the dreads after melting it in with a hot hairdryer as recommended?
This question (version 3) had two issues. In addition to fixing those issues I tried to remove extraneous information that didn't effect the question for the sake of clarity.
1)The question stated that microcrystalline was a "main" ingredient, which it is not, (but beeswax is) so I fixed that.
2)I also had to re-add that we are talking about recommended use since that effects the outcome.
3)In version B I also left off the ending of the second version since we can agree that the wax does become a solid when it cools. Also, the origin of microcrystalline does not effect the question.
Below are the two options I submitted:
Since the main ingredient in DreadheadHQ dread wax is beeswax and since microcrystalline wax is also an ingredient, and the melting point of beeswax starts at about 140°F: Assuming the dread wax is used as recommended, how can it be claimed that your wax can be removed using hot water or a hair dryer and does not solidify inside the dreads after melting it in with a hair dryer as recommended?
Since the main ingredient in DreadheadHQ dread wax is beeswax and since microcrystalline wax is also an ingredient, and the melting point of beeswax starts at about 140°F: Assuming the dread wax is used as recommended, how can it be claimed that your wax can be removed using hot water or a hair dryer?
I stated that I preferred B because I thought it more clear and that I'd continue answering Question 1 as soon as an agreement on it's wording had been reached.
The next correspondence I received was a facebook comment by Lisa on the DTD Group Wall: "Version 1, like we agreed on below. We all liked it the way it was."
I'm not really sure if Lisa is speaking for the group here or not. I'lll wait for confirmation on that. In the mean time I responded by posting:
@Lisa: I gave several valid reasons for the changes that I proposed to
that version of Question 1. If you'd like to discuss each of the changes we *
It would certainly help things progress faster if you were
to consider the two options that I posted, choose one, and either agree
to use it or determine what... specifically you think needs changing and
why- and then let me know.
* = I removed the word certainly since I had used it twice and it sounded funny. =]