So, basically....

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

Posted by maxx on October 12, 2002 at 01:17:48:

In reply to: Dear CCJ... posted by Noli on October 10, 2002 at 19:11:27:

Basically what I see here is that standards are good, testing is
good. But it can't be anything other than anecdotal unless
methodology is stridently scientific. So maybe any test results not
following strict scientific guidelines should include the
words 'anecdotal' or the disclaimer phrase 'it appears' before the
statements about the test results. In no way do I beleive anyone hot
on this issue thinks they are lying. But as I see it, it's not a
scientifically viable study unless it is executed with crazy strict
guidelines, nay, rules even. So.
Let me also say that I have intentionally avoided reading the
microscope records because it doesn't matter to me. Sand doesn't
matter. Grit doesn't matter. Dye(unless toxic) doesn't matter. Stain
and consistency and 'does it fit thru a 5' matter, at least to me. I
am not looking for McHenna. I don't want McHenna. McHenna would
probably benefit hugely people making money off McMehndi, though. I
like the differences in hennas. I like the stories the powders tell.
All the stories.
It's always unnerving for me to speak my mind in public. I find when
I hold a view a bit different from the herds I am at best ignored and
at worst flamed. I watch it happen here with others pretty regular.
But I speak anyway. Hoping all are having exactly the evening they
Peace and farms in Galway,


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.