Re: [compost_tea] The chemical world

From: David Anderson <squtch_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:35:44 -0800
Bob as an example. He mentioned that someone might have misinterpreted
something he said: "Maybe they just read or remembered the headline."

If the headline could be misinterpreted without reading the article,
then there is a communication problem,  and who has the most to lose
from that miscommunication?

Bob is real excited about compost tea. He is also the manufacturer of
a brewer. While presenting information to customers, he should tone
down what he says that may even remotely be able to be taken as a
claim of something that might not be a proven action of the tea.

Yeah, I know that it is SOP to talk up your product, and he certainly
does believe in his product,  but if the goal is to have greater
acceptance of ACT, instead of selling more brewers sooner, then he
needs to present the information to potential customers in a fashion
that will make things clear. Under-selling a product leads to a much
higher customer satisfaction.

On the other hand, in groups like this where he is participating as a
member, he should feel free to discuss what he believes that ACT can
do. But even there he should be careful about how he frames things,
because he is posting as the owner of bobsbrewers.

I'm not saying that anything that Bob has posted here, or even what he
told potential customers was wrong.  I don't know. All I know is that
someone apparently took something he said wrong, and it would help if
he was more careful about what and how he communicates some things to
potential customers.

On the other hand, I think that Ted sometimes gets a little too far
the other direction where he is applying the standards for his
commercial enterprise and what he is willing to tell customers, to
whether something should be discussed. Just because something hasn't
been proven, does not mean that it has been disproven.

And just like with Bob, I'm not saying that Ted or Nick is wrong.

What I am saying that they should all emphasize the soil and health
building aspects of the tea. Bob needs to be careful with his
headlines, and Nick needs to be careful with his "no truth to that"
response.

Spraying ACT can provably help you control aphids, as long as you
using it to replace chemicals that kill ladybugs. Of course it is
possible that the right batch of ACT could contain some little
critters that attack aphids, but if it doesn't, you will look like an
ass for making that claim. Sure you acn mention the possibility, the
bringing up a healthy food web (not just soil food web) is a safer way
to go about it.

Now if you want a good idea of how compost tea is being represented
just search on  [compost tea pests] or [compost tea disease]. No, it
is not just people on this list,  but those on this list should
consider how things they say about ACT can be taken by others.

Dave

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:26:40 -0800 (PST), butch ragland
<wilddog_202_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Again who on this list is making untrue or overstated
> claims. If "they" aren't on the list then who are we
> talking to. If we relate our experiences then those
> who participate or lurk can take that information and
> use it. If someone makes claims on the list that
> others disagree with then a discussion of the
> specifics of that disagreement would be useful.
>
> You can't control the rest of the world.


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Fri Jan 21 2005 - 20:19:12 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:44 EST