Not a good dodge...
Posted by Maureen on October 10, 2002 at 23:18:29:
In reply to: Re: Your clients sent me unopened, untampered samples posted by Catherine Cartwright Jones on October 10, 2002 at 22:31:00:First, my clients are not all forum regulars. My customers are
And who said anything about "cheating." What it seems is that you
are attempting to accuse anyone not accepting of your results and
methodology of wishing to cheat their clients and customers because
they won't buy into your methods.
What I have said and said clearly, is that your way of going about
this does not control the henna powder from being tampered with.
When you control for this there can be no questions. Until then, you
are left to fall back on stating that I am making allogations and
accusations about people rather than facing that I am questioning the
lack of control in what you did. What I have stated is clear and
understandable without you attempting to read anything else into it.
I do not need to accept your results or methodology when it is flawed
as it is. There are many ways many suppliers check on their henna
powders. You do not "own" the only way to do this. And suppliers
are not obligated to inform you how they handle the quality control
over their products. I don't accept you in the role as the only
person who can test henna powders for quality. You can not coerce
anyone into accepting either your microscope, your methods, or even
to go out and purchase a microscope. That is your way. That is not
my chosen way. And to state the assumption that I don't check and
control the quality of my henna powders is to assume that I would
need you to tell me to do this. I don't...I haven't...I won't!!!
Perhaps if your "way" had been set up so that no questions could be
asked about the chain of possession from the exporter, supplier to
your microscope, then there would be no questions. No research is
any better than its methodology allows. If one step is flawed the
results are. It isn't a matter of "trust" as you want to propose.
It is a matter of did you control in such a way that trust would not
even be an issue. And you didn't.
Shifting the issue, begs the question and I would rather remain on
point. And you should remain consistent. To state that somehow
there a lots of folks who sent my henna powders to you is contrary to
your earlier email to me today that clearly states that there was one
person who sent you a JAM Pack and that is how you got the henna
powders. That is not plural...that is singular. And even if LOTS of
people had, that only increases the problem with the lack of control
you exercised over how you collected the samples.
Confusing the issue only serves to point up that you refuse to face
the one issue presented to your regarding how you did this. Until
you care enough to solve for that, I can't take seriously that you
think that I should have anything to say to my exporters based upon
your findings. What I have to say to them is based upon my own
methods of determining the quality of the henna powder. And I must
say that I set more stringent standards for assuring that I am
providing feedback and information that without a doubt and with
absolute certainty related to the henna powder they supplied to me.
That you assume and state that any supplier is unwilling to or has
not checked out their henna powders is based upon what? That is a
strange assumption and misleading if anyone should think that you
have some proof that such care is not taken by suppliers.
I believe that it is unworthy of you for you to create a climate that
leads people to thinking that suppliers are selling them something
inferior. Especially when you indeed know and have indeed stated
here that you know the suppliers here are selling some of the best
henna powders available. And just because someone does not wish to
participate in your exercises, buy into your findings, or see the
need to run out and purchase a microscope, says nothing about their
henna powder. It just says they have reasons for not participating.
I have stated mine.
|Served by ruboard 2.1.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.|