#11

Merchant
St. Louis, MO
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2018, 02:32 PM by dominicr.)
(08-18-2018, 02:06 PM)Nero Wrote: I guess my point is, none of you would even miss it if it wasn't in the mix.

But since you've been told that lanolin is some miracle ingredient... No questions asked by anyone.

Lame.

It's not weird to you that over the past year or so several new soaps that do not contain lanolin have come out and are considered to be the best...better than the lanolin soaps by the same maker.

Obviously then, lanolin wasn't magic in the first place.
I'm just saying: open your eyes and mind and realize it.
Thanks.
I'd have to agree. It's an ingredient that doesn't really have an advantage over others.(in soap) IMHO lanolin would be a better ingredient in a leave on product like balm.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Shave Sharp, Look Sharp
#12

Member
Virginia
I dont specifically look for lanolin as an ingredient. I had to check some of my soaps just now and found that they all have it. I'd like to try a version of these soaps without lanolin just to see/experience the difference.

HMan likes this post
#13
(08-18-2018, 02:06 PM)Nero Wrote: I guess my point is, none of you would even miss it if it wasn't in the mix.

But since you've been told that lanolin is some miracle ingredient... No questions asked by anyone.

Lame.

It's not weird to you that over the past year or so several new soaps that do not contain lanolin have come out and are considered to be the best...better than the lanolin soaps by the same maker.

Obviously then, lanolin wasn't magic in the first place.
I'm just saying: open your eyes and mind and realize it.
Thanks.


[Image: aIlCzAT.jpg]

olschoolsteel, primotenore, jimofthecorn and 2 others like this post
Secretary Ramsey put his foot into it yesterday . . . in the course of his remarks he said that California “needs water and better society.”  “So does h-ll,” yelled someone in the crowd.  
#14
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2018, 04:42 PM by Nero.)
Then make an argument that makes sense bc I haven't heard one yet in support of lanolin.
Only inquisitive minds though please.
(Posting unrelated pics doesn't validate anything...just shows you're putting up a smoke screen instead of addressing the issue or making an actual point)
#15

Member
Indiana
(08-18-2018, 04:26 PM)BPman Wrote: [Image: aIlCzAT.jpg]


Actually, I think the faulty generalization is the more salient fallacy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

BPman and wyze0ne like this post
#16
Waiting for an actual point
#17
(08-18-2018, 05:29 PM)Nero Wrote: Waiting for an actual point


Quit while you're ahead. Wink

primotenore and wyze0ne like this post
Secretary Ramsey put his foot into it yesterday . . . in the course of his remarks he said that California “needs water and better society.”  “So does h-ll,” yelled someone in the crowd.  
#18
Don't post any more. You sound stupider with every one.
(08-18-2018, 05:40 PM)BPman Wrote:
(08-18-2018, 05:29 PM)Nero Wrote: Waiting for an actual point


Quit while you're ahead. Wink
#19

Veni, vidi, vici
Vault 111
Well, if lanolin was good enough for Fred Mitchell over 80 years ago, it's good enough for me too.
One vote FOR lanolin.
~~~~
Primo
Shaving since 1971; enjoying my shaves since 2014
A che bel vivere, che bel piacere, per un barbiere di qualità! Happy2
#20

Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
guys, play nice or I'll lock the thread.
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.


Users browsing this thread: