With Question 1 out of the way a more "long term" experiment became the hot topic and stole the spotlight from Question 2. The idea is to simulate what dreads go through from conception to maturity. A variety of methods could be used and the progress of the dreads could be observed over time to measure the effectiveness of the methods. Several important questions could be answered with a long term experiments like this, so Lisa (who has become the official messenger of the Anti-Wax group) volunteered to perform a long term experiment and I decided to work on one as well. I've sent her the products she will need and I've been making suggestions and trying to solve problems that are part of experiments of this type. The hardest part is to be sure that you are only testing one variable at a time. It's also real important that everything be as quantitative as possible so that the experiment can be repeated by others. The method for measuring dread tightness will be an important part of the experiment because it will allow us to chart the progress of each dread.

One factor that I hadn't considered before was the natural oil that scalps produce. This oil is one of the challenges of the dreading process. Without it the process would be much different so it's important that we simulate scalp oil in our experiment. It turns out that natural Jojoba Oil (which is technically a wax ester) is remarkably similar to our natural scalp oil. It's become fairly popular in cosmetics because of this. By adding a small amount of Jojoba oil to all of the dreads in the experiment we can create an environment much closer to what dreads really experience.

Since one of the objectives of the experiment is to verify that DreadHead Dread Wax continues to wash out until the dreads are mature, and since we'll be using the weight of the dread to determine how much wax is present, we have to be extremely careful not to let any foreign matter, like fuzz or feathers, get lodged in the dreads. This would effect their weight and give us an inaccurate measurement.  One way to do this is to keep the dreads in a pouch with individual pockets. This keeps the fuzz away so it doesn't interfere. We could, at some point in the future, do another experiment where a measured amount of fuzz was exposed to each dread in the same way. This could be done to determine what factors influence the retention of fuzz, but it would need to be done when the wax in the dreads was not being determined by weight.

Next Steps...

It's important that we look at each of the questions that these long term experiments hope to answer and be sure that their wording and intention is clear. I'll post a list of the relevant questions and propose any changes that are needed. With approval they will become the official questions and with any luck at all we will have answers that we can all agree on when the experiment concludes.

Since measuring the tightness of a dread is important to determining a dreads maturity I put together a pretty easy, accurate and repeatable way to measure dread tightness. We'll be able to use this for future experiments where we look at how long it takes for a dread to mature.

How to measure the tightness of Dreadlocks.

Lastly I want everyone to look at the "Dreadlocks Treaty" below. I'm looking for help from all participants to perfect the wording so that it's something we all can agree upon. In short it's a promise to work towards and agreement about each of the topics the debate covers and spread the truth as we discover it. It's purpose is to make the work that we are doing more permanent so that it's available to help people that have these same questions in the future. This type of permanence is the source of my motivation for the debate. When we come to an agreement on the wording well open the Treaty membership and begin accepting signatures.

Here is the current Version of the Dreadlocks Treaty:

I understand that there are at least two ideas of what constitutes beautiful and ideal dreadlocks, and although I will continue to pursue the type of dreadlocks that I find personally appealing I will be understanding and considerate of others who may have different ideas regarding what constitutes ideal dreadlocks.

I agree to do what's necessary to ensure that the final conclusions of the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate represent my beliefs and have my complete support. I understand the the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate is open to input from all members of the dreadlocks community regardless of their belief system, sex, race or dreadlocks preferences and that it is my responsibility to understand what has been said in the debate so that I can determine if I agree. If I do not agree with any or all points I understand it is my responsibility to raise counterpoints and support them with factual evidence.

I agree to make arguments based on reason, logic and quantifiable measurements and I'll avoid assertions and accusations for which I can not provide factual evidence. My focus will remain on  moving the discussion forward and working to determine the objective truth.

Once I am in agreement with all of the conclusions I will diligently avoid misleading statements and I will share my understanding of the facts by providing links and information to those that haven't been exposed to the conclusions of the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate. I will also review any editable public media that I have control over to eliminate statements that contradict the conclusions of the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate.

This is a work-in-progress. If you have any suggestions on how we can improve it please let me know!!

-KJC

This is the "official" response to my second answer to Question 1:

"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 and DreadHead Dread Soap or a hair dryer?"

It can't, simply. you did answer the question, the answer is that you can not claim that it removes wax since there is some leftover residue.
We are re-doing that experiment over a longer period of time (about 3-5 months) to see how much the wax builds up over time and if it's still that easy to be removed after a longer period of time to let the wax settle in considering you wouldn't do that kind of wash until it has settled for a month.

I will get some of that sample wax, how can I get some?... See More
Then just move on to the next question while our experiments is going on so that this doesn't take a year.

This is my reply:

Sounds like we have a wording issue in Question 1 that is slowing us down. Because of the emphasis on the melting point and the excerpt from the proposed experiment #4, I assumed that you were under the impression that NO dread wax could be removed without “boiling temperatures” and industrial solvents.

Removal of “the majority” of the wax should have been specified in question 1 instead of just saying “removal”. My bad.


Here is the excerpt from proposed test 4 that I’m referring to:

...we believe there is no way to get all the wax out but we could be wrong we do recognise most wax can be removed at a near boiling temp with many tries and by adding repeatted scrubbings with harsh detergents and finaly adding a dissolving agent (industrial strengrth that didssolves even caulks ang glues) even using all 3 methods weve seen only about 80% removal success so we are willing to concede wax remomal is possible if you are able to demonstraye an 80% removal but then you must also edit your site to specify that those temps those ammounts of soap and the exact ammount of scrubbing nreedfed to

remove most but not all the wax..

(SE does not want to do experiment himself in fear of it touching his dreads...

This line is of particular interest: “we are willing to concede wax remomal is possible if you are able to demonstraye an 80% removal but then you must also edit your site to specify that those temps those ammounts of soap and the exact ammount of scrubbing nreedfed to
remove most but not all the wax..”

As it stands I have demonstrated 98.8% removal. Since I believe any undetectable amount of dread wax (inside and out) is acceptable, I’ll be happy to display that claim on my site especially if can count on cooperation with other members of the treaty to do the same.


Fortunately there is no reason we can not just edit the question to clarify the point as long as everyone agrees that this serves the cause. This will answer question one and we can then proceed to question two or focus on what your longer experiment hopes to determine and we can carry that out.

The following version of question 1 is not only clear but it also reflects the actual claim that will be made on the DreadHead site:

"Considering some of the ingredients of DreadHead Dread Wax have a melting point of 140F, if we assume the dread wax is used as recommended*, how can it be claimed that 98.8% of DreadHead Dread Wax can be removed using hot water, DreadHead Dread Soap and a hair dryer?"

With your approval I’ll update Question 1 and continue with the debate.

Peace n’ Respect,
KJC

-KJC

There was a post that looked closely at the recommended waxing amount and concluded that people following my instructions would over-wax. I'm thrilled to see that attention is being paid to these details. Below is the post and my response is after.

We did the math, you over wax with his directions.
First Time - average sized dreads (about 40 of them)
1.5g per 3inches (assuming 24inches) 1.5x8 - 12g per dread x 40 dreads
480g/32
15oz... See More
Every week after
0.3g per 3inches, 0.3x8 per dread 0.24g per dread x 40 dreads 9.6g a week
So 15oz to start, then 9.6g a week
huh.
They only come in 3.5-4oz packages.
Credit goes to SE, I did the math over but he brought it up.
Measurements are from Johnny Clean directly, I used the in between Large and small dreads.

My response:

I thought I'd take a second to go over this math with you guys.

You're assuming that the relationship between dread diameter and optimal wax amount is linear.
It is not. There is a wide range of dread sizes that do great with 1g of wax per 3". Rather than throwing some kind of equation at people that are trying to wax their dreads I determined
two points that seemed relevant considering the size dreads people normally start. One gram for every 3"is fine up to a diameter of about 2cm. (that's a big fat dread) At that point the benefits of the wax are being reduced significantly because of the large amount of hair in a dread that size, so 2g are recommended for dreads 2cm in diameter or more.

In your example I'm guessing your dread is 1.5 cm in diameter (since you chose 1.5g). 1 gram of wax per 3" would be great for this dread.

The initial waxing instructions on the site say "If your dreads are larger ... 2cm or larger then you'll use 2 grams." Following this recommendation you would have added the ideal amount of wax.

It is even more clearly stated in the maintenance waxing instructions: "Dreads that are between .5cm (one fifth of an inch) and 2cm (four fifths of an inch) get .2 grams of wax per 3". Dreads that are 2cm or larger get .4 grams per 3""

Unfortunately, looking back at what I posted with question number one, it's obvious that in trying to simplify the wording I managed to change the meaning as well. I appreciate the heads up and the chance to clarify the wording. It has been edited to reflect the instructions on the site and a note of the edit has been added.

Of course your calculations are all correct except that you divided by 32 to convert from grams to ounces, (fyi 1 Ounce = 28.3495231 Grams / me thinks SE's dealer may be cheating him *grin* =) but to get a dread with a diameter of 1.5cm you're going to need sections very close to 2"x2". That doesn't leave room for many dreads unless you have an exceptionally large head?? According to my calculations you'd be hard pressed to have more than 22 dreads. You're also assuming that the dreads are being started at 24"? Did you know that is four times the average?? Still, it does happen, so we will use your exaggerated number for our first run....

Using the recommended 1g per 3inches with 22 dreads:

1g per 3inches (assuming 24inches) 1gx8 = 8g per dread x 22 dreads
176g/28.35
6.2oz

And sure enough, that's right on for the 1 time, initial waxing amount, when the dreads are first started...

Now divide the lenght by 4 so you're right at the average starting lenght and the amount of wax needed drops quite low.

1g per 3inches (assuming 6inches) 1gx2 = 2g per dread x 22 dreads
44g/28.35
1.55oz

It's important to keep in mind though that the proper amount of wax, is per dread. Not per head. In other words the total wax that's needed for all the dreads together doesn't have any effect on whether or not each dread is properly waxed or over-waxed. If you managed to have 700 dreads you'd need 14 jars of wax - but that's just what it takes to dread a giant hairy monster...

Because dreads very a lot from head to head it's difficult to come up with guidelines that are simple to follow and give everyone optimal results. We have some great guidelines that give people the results they're after but I'm sure that as time goes on we'll learn more and our information will continue to improve.


Anyway, let's continue. Next you said.

This as the same problem as above. It should be .2g per 3" since the dread in question is less than 2cm in diameter.
Keeping your exaggerated 24" average and moving to a realistic number of dreads for the section size we find:

.2g per 3inches (assuming 24") .2gx8 = 1.6g per dread x 22 dreads
35.2g/28.35
1.24oz

If you drop down to the average length you find:

.2g per 3inches (assuming 6") .2gx2 = .4g per dread x 22 dreads
8.8g/28.35
.31oz

Now here's the part that I'm straight baffled with.... "Every week after" I'd love to know where that came from! I mean, seriously...I don't recall ever saying that wax is always added weekly. Now if I did say it - or say something that lead you to believe it, please point it out so I can fix it because that would be seriously misleading!
Now I do say  "3) When maintenance waxing only add wax to dreads that do not have detectable wax in them. If a dread already has some wax, skip it."
I have no doubt that waxing once a week might be appropriate - in fact it's likely - but you never wax just because it's "Monday" - you wax when there is no detectable wax....at least for the first month before you start the A-B Maintenance Routine - at which point wax is only used on the B weeks, always following recco "3)" above.

When we add up our revised numbers from above we see that 1.55oz is used to start the dreads and maintenance applications are .31oz

So in most cases way less "total wax" is used, but as I mentioned above: total wax has no bearing on whether or not each dread is properly waxed. All you have to do is get the amount per dread right - or somewhere in the ball park - and follow those simple recommendations and your dreads will get the full benefits of the dread wax and you don't have to worry about any over-waxing issues.

-KJC

This is the first response to my initial answer:

Okay, there are a few relevant responses.
Silkth

Part two of question one has been touched and is plausible as an explanation, but I'm not sure how you guys feel about it. He did give an explanation of how the soap (or rather, detergent) work and it is logical, but from what he is saying, it seems that it would take a very thorough wash, or multiple washings, to get it out while showering. Using a hair dryer and a towel might be a good way as well, since it's easier to get the hair a little hotter and subsequently, the was more viscous. But, how much would that alone remove? If it didn't remove all of it, would this method remove/leave the same amount every time, thus ridding the possibility of build up?

(Can we also see the back of the cardboard so we know it soaked right through?

After reviewing the response I wasn't exactly sure how to proceed so my next message was more of a request for clarification than anything else:

To make sure we are all on the same page I'm going to repost the last few sentences from the end of my initial Answer:

I look forward to everyone's feedback!

Please check it out and don't miss the "Next Step" note at the bottom!

-KJC

Ok so ya know the wording of the first question that we worked so hard to get right? Well, it's not quite right. Let me explain...

Whenever I mention the "hot rinse" ( that's the removal of dreadwax at the end of each month it's used) I'm always sure to mention that hot water and DreadHead Dread Soap or a hair dryer is used . Somehow though I missed the... See More Dread Soap in the wording of Question 1. It currently reads:
-->
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?

But it needs to read-->

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 and DreadHead Dread Soap or a hair dryer?

Cool, response received via facebook:

Don't want to argue over the wording, that is fine.

That brings us up to version number 5 for Question 1..

I'm finishing up now.

-KJC

Why was no progress made today on Question One?

No progress was made because the time that I had available to spend on the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate project was all devoted to correspondence - not correspondence about the questions or the answers or anything beneficial - it was devoted to a discussion about what type of debate I agreed to have. Here were are, in progress, already working on the answers, and I have to spend my time backtracking to clear myself of more unfounded accusations.

I'm really hoping that we don't have to waste time on this type of drama again. If you have any influence with those that are slowing things down and you'd like to see the debate move forward please encourage them to not waste time with future posts of this type.

The full correspondence can be found in the "Interesting Correspondence" post, just before this one, if anyone would like to see exactly how my Treaty Debate time was wasted today.

-KJC

-KJC

Their Letter:

On behalf of Dreadlocksite approved by the admins and members.Dear Johnny Clean:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the debate we hosted at the
dreadlockssite forum. The goal was to further honest, unbiased
knowledge about dreadlocks and dreadlocking methods, by asking you
simple questions about how your products are formulated and to clarify
contradictions you make in your own web content and videos. For
educational purposes, your answers and our rebuttals were to be made
fully accessible to the public.

We expected a live debate. However, all you did was sign into our forum, post a 4,600-word "Dreadlocks Treaty Letter" and then disappear. Many of us stayed on the forum for over two hours, expecting you to come back and participate, or at least post a response to all the comments asking where you were. Later we found out through your Facebook page ... See Morethat you refuse to do a live debate, though you did not tell us this directly. As the host of the debate, we were very disappointed at your lack of participation and communication.
Not one single member of our 1,200-member forum has agreed to sign your "Dreadlocks Treaty" since it is based on categorizing people and presumes to speak for their motivations and beliefs. Your document contains several other things that have no place in a "treaty" and are completely irrelevant to the issues up for debate.
We also did not appreciate you re-wording our questions at the last minute without our knowledge or consent; it violated the spirit of the debate. If you needed clarification on a question or did not like the way it was worded, you had ample time (weeks) to ask us for a rewrite. If you ever come back to our forum and read the official debate thread, you will see your actions have not fostered any goodwill towards you or your company, even among self-described "neutrals".
Since you are unwilling to have a real-time discussion as promised, and insist on re-framing the issues to suit your marketing purposes rather than dealing with them honestly and at face value, we don't see how any constructive progress can be made. We are sad to say we consider the debate a failure.
One of our forum members said it best: "There are no 'winners' or 'losers' because we are all learners." We hope you agree. So in the spirit of full disclosure, we respectfully ask that you post this on your dreadlocks.tv site, above your "Treaty Letter" and links to your answers. Thank you.
You are always welcome on our forum, and we hope to see you there again sometime.

My Response:

I agree, your debate was somewhat of a failure.

For one, you needed my participation in order to have the type of debate that you intended to, but you pretended not to actually need me. Instead of seeking my cooperation ahead of time it was stated that you would "have the debate with or without me". Mr. Eagle said that I would be "admitting defeat" if I didn't come, and he assumed I would then feel pressure to participate as he wanted. That was the only invitation I got to your debate and I had no idea there were questions posted until I actually went to post my letter. In regards to the claim that I "Promised" to come debate on your forum, on your terms, here are the actual comments I posted to Mr. Eagle on YouTube (he was trolling my comment trying to win followers as he always does). This was the only time I discussed the debate with with Mr.Eagle. If you'd like to see all the comments you can go to:

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=ig-E6CyTJlg

If Mr.Eagle decides to erase his comments I've already downloaded them and I can provide a complete copy. My relevant response are below:


@iriesoaringeagle  ...you guys are to

agree on an email address that I will

use to contact you. You will all

collaborate and speak for the anti-wax

community as a whole. I won't be

debating one person - I will be

debating your community. Is that clear?

All emails will be posted publicly on

my site and on all the anti-wax sites.

Then when it's settled it will be

settled for good. This is the only way

I'll sacrifice the time to do this - it

has to last - it has to be done for

good.

@iriesoaringeagle  I've already told

you what type of well documented,

permanent debate I will participate in.

If you wish to hold some other type of

hate-on-wax-fest on your site you'll do

it without me. You can pass your stale

lies around as long as you like.

Regardless you'll get an invitation to

participate in a real debate and you

can or not. I really don't care either

way. Peace.

-----------

As you can see, if Mr.Eagle led you to believe that I promised to participate in the debate on his forum, he lied to you. Let's dwell on that for just a second. He LIED to you. The man that screams so loudly that I am a LIAR. That my site and I are full of LIES. Isn't it interesting that when the facts come out it is HE that must try to explain himself.


What I said was that I would deliver an invitation...and I did. That was the 4600 word letter I posted to your board. Now I'm terribly sorry that your "leader" or whatever he was, lied to you and misrepresented my intentions but it hardly constitutes a broken promise on my part.

I hope that his betrayal doesn't prevent you from participating in a truly worth while debate. I'd like each of you to please consider accepting my invitation to a debate that will remain solidly on topic. Please review the Dreadlocks Treaty as well. It is not a finished document that is being forced on you - it is a draft. I'm asking for everyone's input. It is something we must all agree on before we can sign and benefit from it.

I've heard two mentions now that you don't like the two groups that I proposed in my initial Treaty Letter. Let's make some progress on this right now.

You guys agree on some things. People who use dreadwax and love it agree on some things. That's all I'm saying. Each group has some common beliefs about dreadlocks and the two groups tend to disagree with each other.

In my Dreadlocks Treaty letter I listed some beliefs and ideas that I thought united each group. Which ones specifically don't you agree with? I'm asking you...not telling you. Get it? Let's see what we have in common and what we don't.

The worst thing we can do is pretend that our group is the only group and that everyone that doesn't happen agree with us is just wrong. I hope that makes sense. Let me know your thoughts.

Now if what you want is the truth you have an open invitation to work with me until we discover it. The debate is about the questions and the answers. The treaty is about what we do when we have agreed and come to a conclusion. If answers and moving forward are the things that concern you then please focus on the issues and participate in The Dreadlocks Treaty debate.

Now your debate, the one you started on your site, is, as you pointed out, is lacking my participation. This leaves you with two choices. You can keep chatting with yourselves, agreeing with each other about dread wax or you can join our debate - which is just beginning. You should find it quite relevant because each of the initial questions were inspired by questions you proposed. On the other hand, if you're only interested in who's comming to your forum and you have no desire to participate in a focused debate without the drama then you'll ignore my request. Please give this some thought before you make a decision.

PS:I thought I made it clear why a
real-time debate doesn't work for me?
Maybe I left that out of my letter??
For progress to be made we'll often
have to come up with an experiment and
carry it out. This can't be done in
real-time unless you're all coming over
to hang out and play "lab" with me in
the kitchen. I also check my facts. I
want to do everything I can to prevent
mistakes or misleading information.

I feel less would be settled real-time
because we'd just be passing around
opinions and sharing generalities much like
you guys do now on your board.

Without a treaty in place what is said
is so temporary it's not even worth saying.
I could prove and demonstrate until I'm
blue and I'd still have to deal with random
accusations and slanderous comments.

I hope you can see it from my perspective
and can understand and respect my position.

-KJC

Their Response which came next:

You shouldn't have to play lab. You should know your product like the back of your hand, you should know ALL effects it has on your dreads without experiments. Why are you selling it when you don't know enough about it to answer 20 simple questions?
And really, calling SE a liar and a troll?
We have proof that natural dreads are beautiful, where ... See Moredid he lie?
I would believe a misunderstanding... but an outright lie!
At least he knows what he's talking about. Know your product before you glorify it!

A response by Amy:

Proving natural dreads are beautiful would be akin to 'proving' that I think brown is a beautiful color. It's a matter of personal opinion and preference. Here are a few quotes I picked out of that YouTube link:

iriesoaringeagle: "i am the webmaster and the entire debate will be held *live* on the website 8 pm est may 7th thats plenty of time to prepare"

(asterisks added by me)... See More

KnottyJonnyClean: "...I'll participate in a debate but its not going to be a rock throwing contest on someones message board..."

I think this misunderstanding of live vs. not is understandable given the 'conversation' that took place on YouTube. SoaringEagle did say LIVE, but KJC must have accidentally skipped over it or disregarded it thinking it was not actually part of the terms of the 'agreement'. (Not meant as an accusation, of course, just stating.) I think that the nature of the debate should be more explicitly stated in your initial letter. I also think that Lisa has a point; you should (and I believe DO!) know more than enough about your own products to participate in a debate. I've seen this myself in our personal e-mails we've exchanged.

Although experiments may be a part of this debate, past information and documented experiences should qualify as 'factual' enough as support. I do believe that the amount of time this 'debate' is taking (and I'm not sure, by definition, it qualifies as a debate if all you're doing is experiments and presenting one another with the results.... that's more like show and tell, LOL) is doing you no favors to your relations with the "anti-wax contingent", so to speak. This is because of the obvious live vs. not misunderstanding and I think that in order for things to continue and this debate to happen both sides need to re-examine (in a COOL, CALM, and COLLECTED WAY) the format in which this will all go down to TOGETHER decide on what way we work best given the information and results everyone wants.

My Response:

Here we remain....focusing on the mechanics of the debate, and making no progress on the topics. How sad. =[


Point 1:

I'm comfortable in my knowledge of my products. I've been solving peoples dread problems for 10 years. The reason for experiments is not for me to Learn - it's for me to show how something can be Learned. I usually know the outcome of the experiment before I do it.

Yes I could go to a forum and say "I know that DHHQ Dread Wax can be melted out with a hair dryer". Then SE will say something like "YOURE A LIAR - NO IT CAN'T". How does that help anyone? That is a waste of everyones time. An experiment will offer factual evidence, not opinions. You can't say - the experiment is a liar. You can't say that what you just saw didn't happen. You can (and I'm sure SE will) say that the experiment was faked somehow. But therein lies the beauty of the experiment. It is completely repeatable. That means that any person, anywhere in the world, that doubts it's validity can repeat it and verify the conclusion.

This has now been explained so clearly that I'll interpret any  further comments that don't take this information into account as a direct waste of everyone's time.

Point 2:

Amy I appreciate your unbiased objective stance and I wish that I could accept the idea that there was some sort of misunderstanding.
Had only those two comment been made, the ones you mentioned, then I could see that as a possibility (very unlikely but still) and I could give him the benefit of the doubt but those were not the only comments I made. I was VERY clear that I intended to do things by email and that I would send him an invitation.

He outright lied to everyone involved. Anyone that denies that and wishes to keep reason on their side is going to have to do a real good job of explaining how my words below could possibly be interpreted as a promise to participate in the debate that he proposed on his forum. The first one is the full version of the comment that you posted part of. Notice how I clearly state that my intention is to do things by email:

@iriesoaringeagle I really want to believe that you're not flat out lying to me but I can't understand why not one single customer, out of all these supposed disappointed customers, hasn't gotten in touch with me in 10 YEARS. It makes no sense at all. I'll participate in a debate but its not going to be a rock throwing contest on someones message board. It will be by email and you and your friends can write the responses together. I'll send the initial email to any address you guys choose.


@iriesoaringeagle you guys are to agree on an email address that I will use to contact you. You will all collaborate and speak for the anti-wax community as a whole. I won't be debating one person - I will be debating your community. Is that clear? All emails will be posted publicly on my site and on all the anti-wax sites. Then when it's settled it will be settled for good. This is the only way I'll sacrifice the time to do this - it has to last - it has to be done for good.

@iriesoaringeagle I've already told you what type of well documented, permanent debate I will participate in. If you wish to hold some other type of hate-on-wax-fest on your site you'll do it without me. You can pass your stale lies around as long as you like. Regardless you'll get an invitation to participate in a real debate and you can or not.

-----------------------------------


After reading through my comments it's very obvious that I had no intention whatsoever to debate on the forum - and I certainly made no promises. This is an example of a liar caught in his lie and anyone that chooses to back him up needs to really think about where they have placed their loyalties. Maybe you find that you are too caught up in what you already "believe" to step back and asses the situation, that you are too personally involved to call a lie a lie....if that's the case I hope you are able to clear your mind and open yourself to what is going on.

-KJC

Their post:

I find it funny that you deleted this last time I put it up... got caught in a contradiction and didn't like it so you it it and AGAIN look at the quote velow, that's the second time you did that.
What I put EXACTLY was
"Don't forget this is a debate and there are two sides while KJC is only
giving you links to one. Even... though you quoted "No one party should
have total control over the content"

You and your contradictions

My Response:

Let me ask you.... Is this group called the "official johnny clean dreadlocks and dread wax debate"

No it's not. Because that was the name of YOUR debate. The one I never agreed to. (see previous posts below)

I deleted the link to YOUR debate because I'm not (and never was)  participating in it. I'm participating in the "Dreadlocks Treaty Debate" - The one you apparently didn't read the invitation to...Get it?

You say that I'm contradicting myself yet there is no contradiction -

In order for it to be a contradiction your forum would have to represent the "other" side of the argument. I don't see how it can since all we've done so far is decide on the first question - which due to correspondence of this type I haven't had time to answer - there is nothing further for you to say until I have answered your question.

The last time I checked your forum was still just "Jonny Bashing" and making accusations that you can't back up. That's not constructive - that's not part of the Dreadlocks Treaty Debate - and I see no reason to help you drive traffic to it.

When I post my answer THEN it's your turn. In the mean time please kindly refrain from spamming this group with links
to your site.

Your forum does have a place though - it's where you guys can discus and decide on how you would like to respond.

If you're bored and you'd like to help out please review the Dreadlocks Treaty that  I proposed and help me revise it so that we both agree on it and can sign it. Why don't you guys start a clean forum thread that stays on the topic of the treaty itself....if your thread is working to make progress on the treaty then it's relevant and I wouldn't consider links to that thread to be spam.


Finally...

I do not have the time to continue this back and forth that doesn't help us move forward.

I'll do my best to remove all future correspondence posted to this group  unless it's somehow relevant to the debate and moves things forward.

Let me be EXTRAORDINARILY clear about why I'm doing this. I am one of two people that run DreadHeadHQ. Obviously my time is severely limited. I can't possibly take the time to respond to every silly accusation that is dreamed up and posted on this wall and I have no intention of letting them sit there unanswered -only to give the appearance that I'm unable to respond. Since I only have time to leave them there or remove them I will remove them.

The louder it's cried that I "removed them because I was scared to answer" or whatever you dream up, the more certain I'll be that your goal is misdirection rather than progress.

A message from SE:

You know the outcome of an experiment before preforming the
experiment because you design the experiment to suite the desired
results the experiment you proposed was this.

Add wax to 1 dread, elmers glue to anothert and palm roll the 2 for a
month if 1 changed sizes and the other didnt according to you this
someho...w proved that wax didnt glue hair together..thats faulty logic all
it proves is that glue dries hard wax dries firm
Any experiments performed would need to make sense scientifically and
yours simply dont they are false experiments to prove false information

yes its repeatable but it proves nothing.

We have positive proof that wax remains in dreads for up to 6 years after the last waxing.. the proof lies in in cut off and combed out dreads
that were full of wax; that also is a repeeatable experiment because
thousands of dreads a year are cut due to wax.

-SE

My Response:

I do not have the time to continue this back and forth that doesn't help us move forward.

I'll do my best to remove all future correspondence posted to this group  unless it's somehow relevant to the debate and moves things forward.

Let me be EXTRAORDINARILY clear about why I'm doing this. I am one of two people that run DreadHeadHQ. Obviously my time is severely limited. I can't possibly take the time to respond to every silly accusation that is dreamed up and posted on this wall and I have no intention of letting them sit there unanswered -only to give the appearance that I'm unable to respond. Since I only have time to leave them there or remove them I will remove them.

The louder it's cried that I "removed them because I was scared to answer" or whatever you dream up, the more certain I'll be that your goal is misdirection rather than progress.


PS: What you have there is not proof, technically it's very weak anecdotal evidence. To say there's a big difference is a gross understatement.

It would only be a repeatable experiment if every variable was controlled for six years. If that wasn't unreasonable enough on it's own you'd also need 6 years to repeat the experiment. Did you completely funk 7th grade science? I slept and drew through every minute of it and apparently I got more out of it than you did. lol

Don't worry, if it's experiments and cold hard facts that you want to debate you've come to the right place. Just sit tight and I'll post my answer as soon as it's finished.