Soil Doctor® System
|
Zero-Tolerance of Slander |
|---|
RE: Soil Doctor® Gossip
Title: Zero-Tolerance Beginning Calendar 1997
Starting January 1997, Crop Technology, Inc. (CTI) initiates
its policy of Zero-Tolerance of false, disparaging gossip and rumors
against Soil Doctor® technology; CTI customers; and against the university,
government, and seed company researchers who have independently validated
Soil Doctor® technology.
The intent is to directly prosecute The Few perpetrators/initiators of the
slander, personally, most of whom are PUBLIC SERVANTS. This includes prosecuting
the COMPETING soil sensor DEVELOPERS who feign "objectivity" and
publicly assert "It doesn't work", while their close-colleagues
refuse to release FEDERAL Water Quality Data which PROVES that CTI Technology
Efficiently Manages Nitrogen Fertilizer. Several such public servants have
already received notification of CTI's intent. A listing of presently known
false rumors is available at Web Site www.soildoctor.com under "Rumors".
"Fair" Tests and "Due Diligence" (also at www.soildoctor.com)
provide more insight into activities which amount to no less than an unmitigated,
intentional smear campaign.
NOTE: While nobody in Precision Agriculture --in the world-- talks about
providing tangible economic benefits to its customers, starting year one;
CTI's Soil Doctor® System has independent, third-party corroboration
(growers and university,
government, and seed company researchers) and
even a money-back guarantee behind its representation that the Soil
Doctor® System is so accurate at efficiently managing Ag-Inputs, that
economic benefits accrue starting year one.
The often irrational, well-traveled (even to Germany and Australia) gossip
began before 1990, continuing to the present. Prosecution prior to 1995
had been impossible due to the fact that witnesses of the slander would
never reveal to CTI representatives BOTH the identity of the perpetrator
and the identity of the witness SIMULTANEOUSLY. For years, Anonymous parties
at trade shows created disruptive scenes by hurling outlandish accusations
at CTI representatives and CTI technology, attributing them to Dr. John Hummel, (USDA, ARS), Dr. Alfred Blackmer (Iowa State), Dr. Larry Gaultney (formerly of
Purdue, now of Dupont), Dr. Bob Hoeft
(University of Illinois), and unidentified parties from government, academia
and others. Still others (fully-identified
parties) would divulge the rumor and the organization, but not the exact
individual.
Recently, that misguided code of secrecy has been broken, enabling CTI to
begin fully-documenting these incidents. These include many times that aspiring
competitors have made accusations of "paranoia" and whined publicly
because CTI, like other ag-manufacturers, will never regard an evaluation
by a competitor (aspiring or otherwise) as "objective", "unbiased",
or "fair". ("Tests" which have been conducted by aspiring
competitors can be found at www.soildoctor.com under "Fair" Tests.)
Without Question, Agriculture is the Industry where even the best hybrid
from the best hybrid seed company can be EASILY MADE TO UNDER-PERFORM
the worst from the worst by anyone with an IQ over 40. As such, CTI
remains amazed that "tests" (performed by anyone but CTI customers
and the independent researchers that have validated CTI technology) are
automatically presumed to be "fair", "flawless", and
"objective", even when designed and/or conducted by aspiring competitors.
The rest of American society --from the president of the Intel Corporation
to the average U.S. grower-- knows not to trust a Dodge engineer's evaluation
of a Ford product, but to instead look to the representations of a J. D.
Power and Associates or a Consumer Reports organization. And most us can
imagine the havoc that would result from funding the FDA to also conduct
DRUG DEVELOPMENT (to EARN ROYALTY INCOME), in addition to its already-powerful
responsibility in drug approval.
Inexplicably, however, some in Ag believe and preach that --if Ag companies
do not invite their Competitors (particularly their Aspiring Competitors)
to Evaluate their Product-- then that is a "True Sign" of "Paranoia",
not just a minimum of ordinary business sense. Amazing, isn't it?
Keep in mind that most of the "Fair" Tests of CTI had Nothing
to do with Fertilizer Usage and Nothing to do with Yield Production,
and that the remaining "tests" capitalized upon the detrimental
impact on yield from outside factors (like a drowned plant population
or radar which the operator refused to plug-in correctly), data which
any responsible scientists would have routinely thrown-out as scientifically
irrelevant.
More unfortunate for the American public, however, is the fact that those
who conducted the unscrupulously unfair Tests are among the "scientists"
planning to "objectively evaluate" the other technologies of
Precision Agriculture as well, and then turn around and through a sister
organization deliberately use the knowledge they acquired through so-called
"objective evaluations" to DEVELOP THEIR OWN COMPETITIVE PRECISION
AG PRODUCTS. And they want this initiative to take place --at U.S. taxpayers'
expense-- through provisions within the pending "Precision Agriculture
Bill". If this scheme does not scream of "UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES",
"UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE", and "CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST",
then nothing in U.S. Society does. The Altruistic, Congressional goal of
these "tests" is to provide growers with information upon which
they can rely to make their purchasing investments. Logically, however,
testing by those who "tested" (smeared) CTI technology WILL NOT
provide information about the products from CTI's real competitors which
is any more reliable than the smears against CTI.
NOTE: The sole benefit of COMPETITION is to pressure all parties to "work
harder", to "develop better products for the consumer", to
earn a better reputation than its competition, to tally higher sales. But
when one or more parties does not have to work harder to get the better
reputation --when all they have to do is just GOSSIP or STEAL--, then
the sole benefit of Competition is lost. (More detail is included in the
July 1996 "OpenLetter to Industry", available from Sylvia Colburn,
e-mail: colburn@soildoctor.com.)
---To whomever has said to CTI or who is presently thinking "Lighten-Up,
these are all Innocent, Honest mistakes", CTI says: GROW-UP! Honest
and Innocent mistakes don't just happen to be 100%, NEGATIVE, SUSPICION-INCITING
& SCENE-PROVOKING.---
---To whomever has said to CTI or who is presently thinking "What does
it matter? What's the big deal? It's just not important, one way or another.",
CTI reminds you that ALL Religions, including Agnostics --and EVEN ATHEISTS--
recognize that Bearing False Witness is Counterproductive to Society's Needs.
It is particularly distressing when such sentiments emanate from those in
media, because growers depend upon the INTEGRITY of media to make much of
their purchasing decisions. Anyone with so little regard for the truth and
ethics cannot be relied upon to separate fact from fiction for their readers,
especially if they themselves feign Christian values to gain readers' trust.---
---And to whomever has said to CTI or who is presently thinking "That's
what you get for not paying-off these PhD's with tens of thousands of research
dollars", CTI says: "That's Extortion, just as ILLEGAL as is Payola
in the radio industry". The university, USDA soil and water conservation
districts, and seed company researchers that have validated CTI technology
had no need for pay-offs, bribes, or compensation of any kind, so why should
anyone else? While bribes may be "The way things work in Agriculture",
a decent defense attorney would forcibly gag any client attempting to defend
slander or other unethical practices with Your Honor, "They wouldn't
pay me enough." (documented December 5, 1996)---
The most recent false rumor/false accusation was made at the December Indianapolis
trade show. I share it with the AgTalk line because it is a perfect example
of the completely backward (180 degree), misleading nature of false gossip
about Soil Doctor® technology.
December 18, 1996, while standing directly in front of a 3-D, Color MAP
(added August 1996 to the Web Site, to the other maps posted at the time
the site was created) and in front of a PCMCIA Card-Equipped Soil Doctor®
Field Manager unit, a man accused CTI of "NOT MAPPING" because
"YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE TO SEE YOUR DATA!"
Due only to the generosity of the grower, for HE --not CTI-- OWNS the data,
that same map was made available in an advertisement appearing in December
'96 and January '97 issues of Midwest Farm Progress magazines. Like others
before him, the anonymous man would not reveal the source of the irrational
rumor he so-willingly, so-gullibly spread and with which he tried to publicly
embarrass CTI representatives. He, like others before him, Never bothered
to Check his Facts ---facts which would have taken him no more than five
minutes to confirm 1) at the source, 2) through an experienced, independent
third party, or 3) as in this case, just looking RIGHT UNDER HIS VERY
OWN NOSE.
Sadly, Agriculture is Full of cowardly, gossip-mongering, male old hens;
but the time for the impunity of the initiators of the CTI gossip has passed,
and CTI urges others similarly besmirched --and there are many-- to take
similar action. If truth is not worth fighting for --especially when
the Environment and Growers' Livelihoods depend upon it--, then few things
are.
To those who would like to believe that this posting is just as self-serving
as are the many lies that have been told about the Soil Doctor® System
and the many unfair tests of that technology; the preface of the book, "On
Being a Scientist", published by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE,
should help keep truth and ethics in proper, societal perspective:
"The scientific research enterprise, like other human activities, is
built on a foundation of trust. SCIENTISTS TRUST that the results reported
by others are valid. SOCIETY TRUSTS that the results of research reflect
An HONEST ATTEMPT by scientists to describe the world ACCURATELY
AND WITHOUT BIAS. The level of trust that has characterized science
and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled
scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the scientific
community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated
with ETHICAL SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT."
CTI hopes that 1997 will usher in, for Agriculture, a new era that is free
of false, disparaging rumors; free of scientifically unscrupulous "tests";
and free of Due Diligence that is designed to break the spirit of the inventor
just to drive the price down, rather than reveal the efficacy of the technology,
... an era where ALL, not just most, of the Agricultural community devotes
itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical
scientific conduct, conduct which is worthy of the trust that society has
faithfully maintained until now.
Because Soil Doctor® products are guaranteed to produce an economic
return to the owner, the first year, or his money-back, and because no system
has ever been returned; if someone represents to you that CTI technology
"does not work", simply do as those who purchased CTI units did
--right before they made the decision to buy--. Just ask the person for
the Source of the supposed "facts", to verify them for yourself.
You, like CTI customers, will quickly discover that there is either no source,
or that the source is one of those who conducted the many unscrupulously
unfair tests (described at "Fair" Tests), not someone who actually
wanted the technology to work.
Sylvia A.M. Colburn, Vice President
Crop Technology, Inc.