What is not useful...


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Henna Page Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Maureen on August 27, 2002 at 21:24:19:

In reply to: Open call for samples posted by Catherine Cartwright Jones on August 27, 2002 at 17:49:35:

Since the Kimia used to make the comparison was the powder sold for
about two months last fall and has not been the same Kimia sold for
about 9 months, I don't see how the information in the comparison
related to Kimia is useful at all. It could only lead people who
have not tried the Kimia being sold for the last 9 months by me to
believe that the Kimia tested is the current one and the information
therefore relevant. It is not.

The information in the comparison is not valid to the product Javeed
worked so admirably to not just improve, but to make excellent.

No one need to ask me if Kimia is now being sifted. It is more
relevant to ask if the Kimia I have for sell is the one viewed under
the microscope. No it is not.

It seems to me that the comparison information, if it is to be
useful, will provide people with information that is current and
obtained in a way that maintains the integrity of the henna powders
included. Like the current request that the powder be sent in a box
unopened. When a product has been so dramatically changed...and it
is no secret that Kimia went through a rebirth...especially since I
refer to the Kimia I have available as the New Kimia...what is the
value of putting information out about what once was but is no
longer. There is an implication by the inclusion of henna powders in
the comparison document that this information is current enough to be
useful. How so, given the fact that the information provided bares
no resemblance to and is not related to the current product.

It would have been a courtesy to let Javeed or I know that Kimia was
one of the henna powders that you wanted to look at. It would have
been very easy to obtain some of the New Kimia. Just as people are
now being requested to send in samples of their henna powder to be
part of the analysis...I know we deserved the same courtesy. And I
do not know why we were not afforded it. I do not know why anyone
would not be afforded it.

If the information related to the other henna powders on the sheet is
no more relevant to that particular henna powder than the information
attributed to Kimia is relevant to Kimia...well, it just isn't very
relevant. A ghost henna powder was viewed under a microscope.

Perhaps it is just unfortunate that your email went down, as I did
indeed email you to inform you...that if you did not know, the henna
powder sent to you in the fall was not the henna powder Javeed had
developed Kimia into being. And that the new Kimia has been around
since late December.

Sharkiyya is in your comparisons. Very similar issue.

One thing could have assured that any henna powder that became part
of your comparison was indeed a henna powder available currently.
That would have been to request that suppliers wishing to be included
send in samples of their henna powder. That indeed is what is being
done now. But we were not asked to send you a sample for the
comparison made. We didn't send you a sample for the comparison
made. And that is what has created the situation where you have
analysed something that essential does not exist. And there is no
way to undo that. Even if you wished to.

I expected more. I am sure Javeed did. I am sure Noli did. But I
am sure that they can speak for themselves. Just as the quality of
Kimia will speak for her despite being mistaken for her distant
cousin in your comparison.

Maureen

 


Follow Ups


Post Followup

Name:   
E-Mail:   
Subject:   

Optional link URL:   
Link title:   
Optional image URL:   
   

[Home] [How] [Why] [What] [Where] [FAQ] [Forum] [Journal]

Served by ruboard 2.1.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.