|
Dispute Record: 100630 |
Dyno
Database Entries Affected:
|
|
Received: 2014-06-17, 17:42:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
|
Responsed: 2014-06-24, 22:30:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
|
Dispute
Text |
Mr. Collins,
...[Excerpts unrelated to Dyno Database removed]...
Furthermore, come (sic) of the entries in your dyno
database related to our customer cars are not correct. We've brought
this to your attention in the past and you have showed no
willingness to enter the correct data, yet you continue to try to
externally link others to this incorrect information.
...[Excerpts unrelated to Dyno Database removed]...
Thank you.
CC: Jason Forum Administrator |
|
Dyno Database Response |
Before
receipt of this message, the only prior allegation he sought to address
and change in the Dyno Database was Dyno Dabase
ID00616 on
September 6th, 2013. That item was immediately addressed and
responded to Mr. Benveniste in a public forum on September 12th, 2013 at
m5board.com. At the time this message was sent, the Dyno Database
administrator had received no other allegations or investigation
requests of factually incorrect entries from Mr. Benveniste or any
agents of his company or any of his customers. This appears to be
one of Mr. Benveniste's attempts to create a false narrative that only
he can explain the motivation. Mr.
Benveniste also used this correspondence to file a formal complaint with
the forum administrator with an apparent purpose of having any
references to his product lackluster performance removed from the public
record. The forum administrator is an uninvolved third party and
has no frame of reference for any of Mr. Benveniste's allegations and no
way to fact check his story. The forum administrator did not know
that Mr. Benveniste's complaint was misleading and factually incorrect
(he lied).
The day following this message, Mr. Benveniste
sent a six-point message to the Dyno Database administrator
alleging factual errors in the Dyno Database. This letter came a
day after the allegations above stating that he had already sent these
complaints (or something like these) before, and he alleged these
fictitious complains were ignored by the Dyno Database administrator.
It is the belief of the Dyno Database
administrator, that Mr. Benveniste brought this allegation up to an
uninvolved third party for the purpose to mislead, request punitive
action, and have factually accurate, scientifically accurate, but
unflattering tests of his products removed from the public record.
It is further believed that Mr. Benveniste did not submit a
multi-faceted complaint prior to making these comments, but did send one
a day later in an attempt to write his own narrative and provide a false
cover story. The dates and timestamps of Mr. Benveniste's
correspondence very clearly tell a different story than the one he
writes. |
|
Received: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
|
Responsed: 2014-06-23, 21:00:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
| Dispute
Text |
2. Your
second entry, http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=630&vType=1&dynoID=2
-Nothing I can say about this, I don't know what modifications he had at
the time, nor was I present for this dyno.
-It looks like this was the dyno you've psoted (sic) about, and I will
contact them to clarify the modifications that were present on the
vehicle at the time. According to the dyno run file itself downloaded
from your site, it states that the vehicle had Test Pipes, BPM Tune
(does not specify which one), Megan Axleback, and Green Filter. "Both
Cat Delete" may refer to deleting both of the primary cats, or it may
refer to removing the primary and secondary cats. It's conflicting and
ambiguous, I can not comment since I was not present. |
| Dyno
Database Response |
This was point-2 of
a six point message alleging factual errors to the Dyno Database
administrator. The Dyno
Database does not understand why Mr. Benveniste is filing a complaint of
factual errors only to say he has no factual errors to report. The Dyno
Database takes a dim view of alleging factual errors and providing no
evidence before ultimately admitting that no such evidence or even an
allegation of errors exists. |
| |
|
|
Received: 2014-06-18, 01:18:00 |
Disputed By: Mike "Benvo" Benveniste |
|
Responsed: 2014-06-24, 22:30:00 |
Dyno
Database Response |
| Dispute
Text |
5.
http://www.s65dynos.com/showDyno.php?recID=631&vType=1&dynoID=2
-Seems to be another duplication entry of #2, except with STD rather
than SAE correction. Is this standard procedure? |
| Dyno
Database Response |
This was point-5 of
a six point message alleging factual errors to the Dyno Database
administrator. Yes,
this is STD instead of SAE. Yes this is standard procedure in the Dyno
Database. When Dyno files are available and the Dyno Database
administrator is doing the work,
you will usually see three entries for each: SAE, STD, and Uncorrected.
The Dyno Database is again perplexed by Mr.
Benveniste's use of allegations of factual errors when no such factual
errors or any evidence
of factual errors or even an allegation of any factual errors exist. |
