Re: [compost_tea] The chemical world

From: butch ragland <wilddog_202_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:08:17 -0800 (PST)
Bob let's see if I get your position.

You're using a little sales gimmick with the "thatch
your lawn in 30 minutes" statement. You are defending
that sales pitch with if you take 30 minutes per
treatment to treat your lawn the biology will
eliminate thatch.

Spent 17 years as a commissioned salesman and I like
it. If taken at pure face value it is a lie, if the
potential customer does what you say he will enjoy the
success promised?

Your belief is if your making a sales pitch to a large
scale farmer that he will enjoy the same success?

Our juris prudence system has a method of dealing with
your deceit. If the home owner or farmer suffers
losses that can be attributed to your sales pitch then
he has a tort and can sue you for damages. Has anyone
suffered damages and if so have you been sued where
damages have been awarded. On the other hand do you
have a list of happy customers?

Finally, do you feel that you and God are square with
your methods? If yes, then remove the last sentence
from your post. Only you can market your business and
nobody will pay your bills.

--- Robert Norsen <bnbrew_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> Regarding many comments about Bob's "claims" if you
> go  www.bobsbrewers.com  and read under "Faqs", that
> is the language I have printed.  However in
> literature and conversations I have often used
> phrases like "thatch your lawn in 30 minutes " or "
> let your wife thatch your lawn in 30 minutes"  but
> always with a careful description of the natural
> biology that 'eats the thatch' and returns it as
> nutrients to the grass. I explain the fact  that
> continued use of ACT after that first application is
> part of this natural process. A vital natural
> process that is killed by chemlawn type care.  Worms
> and Aphids ?  Just my observatons of about 70 or
> more tries over 5 yers.  Most, not every, try proved
> quite effective. Problem was solved.  Not all worms
> or aphids were killed.     .

> Why use startling phrases?  If you don't stop them
> from watchinig TV with a startling statement long
> enough to get attention, possibly interested, in
> organic methods they will use chemlawn forever. Ok
> some will only hear or repeat the headline.  Some
> heckle to appear important to their own ego. A
> sport.   Never learn or change unless it is their
> own idea.   

> Once the average auto driver ( pumping up his tire
> along side the rutted gravel road, was hooted at
> "get a horse!" Now that hooter changes lanes in
> front of you if you leave a car length.  No matter
> how we present the FACTS of ACT there will be
> hooters. They need your patience, skill and
> explanation of how this works..WHY it is important.
> A few will listen. those around them will hear it
> better.  

> I'll wager the Elaine has suffered many hooters.
> Still does even on this list. Paul Sacks did years
> of professional organic research and testing, wrote
> books and built a business around organics before he
> started working with ACT  When he claims that ACT
> does something he  probably has tests to know that
> it will do that. Nature Tech's web site carefully
> depics the advantages of ACT. The difference the
> pictures show with ACT is not an exageration.  I saw
> the same amazing results in testing we did early in
> the our brewer development.  So how do we get chem
> indoctrinated farmers to become organic farmers?
> Tell then it might work some of the time?. Try it on
> your 10,000 acres. It may make a difference?  If you
> are lucky?  Sometimes?  Just don't expect much! 

> If it doesn't work the farmer knows he will lose a
> half $M. It is going to take more than maybe to
> interest him or a back yard gardener in changing to
> the organic way.

> If organic does work for him, it will change his
> farm from a staggering annual loss ( including the
> loss of farm soil )  to a significant annual gain.
> That is the findings of testing and the experience
> of other farms that went organic - Is it wrong to
> make a strong case that each farmer can use to help
> make the change?  

> If all these farms together, going organic, will
> clean up the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico,
> will reduce flooding of the Mississippi, will hold
> water in the aquifer,  will return the dry states to
> useful farms, will reverse desertification, will
> return health to American and people and animals
> world wide, kids and their parents and grand
> parents. The observations by many astute scientists
> have reported this and more is a  highly probable
> result of organic.  Persons on this list have
> reported significant first hand obserevations that
> support ACT

> Knowing that, I can stand in a meeting and explain
> to a heckler why organic, why ACT. What tremendous
> potential benefit is logicaly expected by expanding
> compost use and effectivity a thousand fold by
> making and applying Aerated Compost TEA along with
> other nesessary organic farming actions  This is not
> the time for us to be the reluctant organic dagons.
> As EARTHLINGS we need to make the change from
> chemical to organic happen ASAP .
>    That's my belief and I'm  Bob  of Bobs Brewers. 
>
> Ok give it hell Tom it's your turn .... 
>

=====
Butch Ragland
Conflict is as addictive as
cocaine, alcohol, cigarettes,etc
I'm sorry to report that
cooperation is not


           
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Sat Jan 22 2005 - 11:57:24 EST

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