Lets slow down a minute here.
The fact that pure O2 is a really good/better method for aeration is not up for debate any longer. Why, because I'm the OP and I can say whatever I want. Can we agree it is a pretty good method? I think we can. You think shaking things around is just as good - okay. I know I fell into this trap for a few posts too, but maybe we just need to agree to disagree about the science here. Some people think humans rode around on dinosaurs. Who am I to say they didn't? After all, I haven't conducted any experiments to prove my point.
Now that that is out of the way.
First of all, no, I will not be conducting any sort of experiments for comparing a beer with O2 to a beer without O2. I've got a little hunch the beer with the O2 will be better (because I made 24 batches without, and 1 batch with, and the "with" wins - coincidence?). And since I only get to brew about once a month, I am not going to start undercutting my beer quality for the sake of "experiment" to appease some doubting Tom. Buy a kit and see for yourself, or don't. It is not effecting me.
Second, experimentation about dissolved oxygen concentrations has already been done. How can you possibly say you read the entire thread and didn't see anything concrete to that effect? As I am typing this, I am on my couch, and kind of shrugging in disbelief. Even I feel confused. Personally, I quoted and referenced experiments done by Wyeast and White Labs. I offered page numbers and links. But whatever, if that is not enough for you - fine. It is not effecting me.
Finally, I do not have any desire to "convince" anyone who was not already thinking seriously about making this process tweak. The truth is, if you don't want to start doing it, I just don't care. I will never have to drink your beer, so if you are happy with it, then I am happy you are happy. Just brew, shake that carboy up really well, and enjoy. Okay? It is not effecting me.
So in summary, if anyone has been on the fence, and wants to take my "anecdotal" findings at face value - great. I have a feeling you will be happy with your "anecdotally" improved results. For those that responded to my post about finding great improvements with O2 by saying "I disagree!"; that's okay too.
I have no agenda, and I do not want to become the "O2 guy", but for anyone already on the fence, don't let "I disagree!" keep you from making better beer. "I disagree" can stick to what has worked for them for so long now. They obviously know what they are doing, and their beer has no room for improvement. It was ridiculous for me to suggest such a thing.
In fact, I could have been wrong from the start. After all, I have nothing to offer but some anecdotal evidence of one great batch of beer. It was probably dumb luck. And maybe my taste buds aren't even that good. I still haven't drank my beer back to back with some poorly handled Guinness; so how can I compare it? You're right, this whole thread was probably just a waste of everyone's time. So I apologize to anyone who has contributed.
Now excuse me, I have a stout to go choke down.
Joe