I have noticed more and more this is a typical response when presented with any type of logic refuting unsubstantiated claims.
What does "Not even worth the time" mean anyway? Does that mean defending a position is not worth the time? Making a logical case is not worth the time? Being part of a discussion is not worth the time? Why post or respond at all if it is not worth the time? Even more so, what does that say for others that are trying to have a discussion, they are not worth the time? Bit of a conundrum there, it must be worth the time to respond declaring it is not worth the time.

After careful consideration I conclude it is 5 O'clock somewhere and IS worth the time to enjoy. :-laf
What it means is that I initially responded to your condescending reply, then decided I wanted to keep my head above the fray and not comment. You are entitled to your opinion and entitled to spend your money how you see fit. I work for a large metropolitan county that has a large fleet of vehicles, mostly gas but several hundred diesel trucks and close to a thousand commuter buses in my county alone. Further, all of our buses are diesels as well.
I know for a fact that we use diesel straight from the tanker truck with no additional additives. Buses run for years and hundreds of thousands of miles on regular old fuel.
You chose to believe their is a problem and that additives are the solution, that's fine. You chose to believe that evidence supports your claim (but I'm not worth your time providing that evidence, as you have so politely pointed out). I chose to believe that millions of miles driven annually, in trucks that are 10-15 years old, are sufficient evidence for me to believe that regular old ULSD is sufficient enough for my truck. If there was a problem with the fuel or a legitimate benefit to additives, I'm sure that we would use them.
My wife's aunt is the supervisor of the school bus depot in an adjoining county. I know for a fact that they don't use any additional additives either. Now I'm likely in the 10's of millions of miles driven annually with no additives and no problems.
I have to wonder how many large fleets in the US use additives in their OTR trucks. My father used to drive for a regional trucking company and has friends that still do, they don't use additives.
Some people chose to use additives, some don't. I have yet to see one piece of evidence that using an additive has prevented a problem. Cummins only recently partnered with Power Service to endorse (not recommend...) their product. In 2016 Cummins didn't recommend any additive. In 2015 Cummins didn't recommend any additive. I can go on and on about that. Then, in mid 2017 Cummins suddenly endorses Power Service. What changed suddenly from 2016 to mid 2017? Did I miss the national headline about all the trucks getting poor quality fuel and grenading? Did I miss the national headline about a sudden change in ULSD composition? I don't think I did. A quick Google search doesn't reveal anything obvious.
So, nothing changed about the Cummins engine and nothing changed about the ULSD supply in the US. Cummins simply "endorsed" Power Service, but made no recommendations for use. Nothing changed in warranty status from Ram (my apologies for initially stating that Cummins backed the warranty). Nothing changed. Why should I believe that despite my manual stating the following "
In addition, commercially available fuel additives are not
necessary for the proper operation of your Cummins®
diesel engine" that now I suddenly need to use a commercially available fuel additive? Like I said in my initial post... I haven't seen anything that demonstrates a NEED for an additive. I asked you to please help educate me why I need one. You chose to give me a condescending reply, rather than any facts.
Because of all that, I initially gave a childish reply to you and posted it. Then I immediately felt regret and decided that my immature response wasn't helpful to the thread. Because I wasn't able to delete my post, I edited it to what you quoted and complained about.