Show me conclusive proof that ignoring the recommendations of engine manufacturers and people with a huge amount of experience does not damage engines. Such proof would be controlled testing of a significant number of engines over a long period. One person's limited testing (9 total runs) on a cheap engine proves nothing other than he has time and money to throw away. Until such conclusive testing is done, I personally think it's wise to follow the voices of experience, and of the people who made the engines.

Besides, what's the point of trying to prove the manufacturer wrong in this case? Other than sticking to tradition (engines must be broken in sloppy rich) what's the goal? Experience, and experimentation by engine manufacturers and others, has shown that it's not necessary, and harmful to the engine. I can't see the value in trying to prove them wrong, or jumping on the bandwagon of someone who's advocating ignoring them.