I was referring specifically, for example, to this post. Since my comment begins with "Limiting the selection to 1948-55", I was annoyed (but not surprised) to see that rather than offer assistance, someone was happy instead to show how much smarter they are than I am - by ignoring the question, and instead explaining something I already know.
I asked if Linkert correction air volume was controlled by the hole size. The responses I got were, shall we say, disappointing, in that it was "explained" to me that the size meant nothing (which, of course, is why there are 5 or 6 different sizes - because they don't do anything) and that correction air isn't controlled at all.
Since this is completely false, but spoken with absolute assurance by an "expert", I decided not to waste his time and mine by asking him anything else.
I also foolishly remarked that weighing rods end for end depended on their center of gravity - to which again I was told "no, it doesn't", with the same confidence that once explained how the world is flat. Again: rather than attempt to "prove" something that needs no proof, I gave up.
I'm also amused to ask a fairly technical question, and receive the full attention of someone whose grasp of the subject is so poor that he doesn't even understand what my question is (let alone provide an answer), and instead supplies cut-n-paste boilerplate "Mr. Science explains how an engine works" (high school level) such as "mixture must be optimized" and "cam timing depends on engine design". This would have been helpful for me before 1960, otherwise not.
These are not matters subject to opinion, or belief, or even testing. It doesn't matter who agrees, or doesn't, or how popular, or how many times it's repeated.
Can I quote you on that?