Re: What is not useful...

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

Posted by Maureen on August 28, 2002 at 03:13:39:

In reply to: Re: What is not useful... posted by Catherine Cartwright Jones on August 27, 2002 at 21:48:07:

What remains unclear is what is the difference in criteria used to be
selected as a henna powder or internet supplier to be included on the
first list as compared to the one yet to be compiled.

List one henna powder was tested with the suppliers unaware. List one
powders were "selected."

List 2 people are aware of the testing and sending henna powder in
awareness that it will be tested. List two is voluntary.

If there was concern with list one that awareness may lead
to "doctoring," why not the same concern with the second list?

Sending henna powder in its sealed container is reasonable and could
have controlled any concerns about doctoring or tampering. Of course
that would have eliminated both Kimia's cousin and Sharkiyya 3 crops
ago from the analysis. And with the safeguard against doctoring, the
initial analysis could indeed have been conducted the same as the
second....with all people in awareness and volunteering.

The new Kimia comes in a sealed container and would have met the
criteria for sealed boxes/containers. The current Sharkiyya would
still have to be eliminated as would any henna powder suppliers
purchase in bulk and pack themselves.

But in some ways that is neither here nor there. Because my real
question is as stated above. Why secrecy was critical with the
formation of list 1 and not with list 2? When the necessity for
secrecy is so easily a nonissue when sealed containers become the

And the issue is not retesting. The issue is the list is viewed as
representing an analysis of what is in henna powders that are out
there...current. In the case of both Sharkiyya and Kimia, the data
reflects history. That is not the stated purpose of the analysis.
There is nothing in the results of the analysis that requires
correcting in Kimia or Sharkiyya. A supplier on top of their game
notices what needs to be corrected and goes about doing so. And when
that has been done, the pass should not be represented as present.

While I see such analysis as a possible tool for henna suppliers and
artists, it can not serve that purpose if what is analysed is already
obsolete. It is not an enticing thing for be invited to go for a
ride when feel like you and yours have been already been hijacked.

When I write about my henna powders though I have
personal experiences with though they are important...It is
because they are. And I need for them to be treated better in this
situation. And better is simply fairly...represented to be as they
truly are.



Follow Ups

Post Followup


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.