<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>Kevin etal - see below<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Kevin C" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net><br><b>To: </b>rongretlarson@comcast.net<br><b>Cc: </b>biochar@yahoogroups.com, "Discussion of biomass" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Erich Knight" <erichjknight@gmail.com>, "biochar-policy" <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:50:57 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar - Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br><br>Quoting rongretlarson@comcast.net:<br><br>> Kevin and several lists:<br>><br>> 1. You said below: "# I have read the BFW Report. What are the <br>> "Selected Quotes" to which you refer? "<br>><br>> Answer: They were in the cite I gave about a dozen lines earlier (my <br>> second line under "2"):<br>><br>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-production/message/833:<br><br># Thanks. However, I am reluctant to discuss selected quotes out of <br>context. Selected quotes leave the door wide open for "cherry <br>picking". If you could start by selecting a few of the quotes that you <br>feel are most relevant, tehn we can focus on them in context.<br>><br> <strong>[RWL: Sorry: They are a package. If you don't care to comment on any, there is not much remaining to talk about.</strong><br><br>> 2. I think our discussion on Rademakers and BFW would go better <br>> after hearing your response to those quotes (of BFW).<br><br># I would suggest that neither of us are competent to discuss the <br>correctness and fairness (or incorrectness and unfairness of the BFW <br>Report, unless we have first hand facts. Mr. Rademaker and his work <br>are being discussed in the BFW Report. Mr. Rademaker would have the <br>first hand facts to discuss or rebut the BFW Report. What does he say <br>on the matter?<br>><br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: I disagree on your first part - based on the three-year history of BFW of misreading and misreporting virtually everything about Biochar. A direct "cherry-picked" quote from their own derogatory-intended report is as close to a first hand fact as almost anyone reading this will get.<br><br> You should ask BFW whether they tried to ask Rademakers. There is no indication that they tried. I think in due course we will/could/might hear from Rademaker. But the way PR campaigns go - one can't wait too long to rebut. For anyone who believes we have to start taking carbon out of the atmosphere and that Biochar is the best means, ignoring BFW mis-information is not possible. That is where I am coming from.<br><br> I am saying, through their own quotes of the natives on the ground, that their own report rebuts the image they are trying to leave. I think they have taken a case (and person) about which/whom they know little and are trying to dampen enthusiasm for all Biochar thereby - even though the material you don't care to read makes a different plausible case. If neighbors are stealing a bumper Biochar-based crop in the belief there is a new miracle seed (which there wasn't), there remains little for a person like Rademakers to talk about in detail in the supposedly missing report (which might exist). BFW leaves only the negative impressions.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Sorry you don't care to comment on what I wrote.</span> As I said, more coming on Rademakers - most of which was available to BFW as well.</span><br><br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Ron]<br><br></span>> 3. I have more coming on this topic (which I put in a "Box" labeled <br>> "BFW" - not "Biochar", and certainly not "stoves").<br><br># Anything that leads to "Truth In Biochar", and makes it easier for a <br>Farmer to decide on the merits of Biochar utilization in his operation <br>is of great interest to me.<br><br>Best wishes,<br><br>Kevin<br>><br>> Ron<br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: "Kevin C" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net><br>> To: rongretlarson@comcast.net<br>> Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com, "Discussion of biomass" <br>> <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Erich Knight" <br>> <erichjknight@gmail.com>, "biochar-policy" <br>> <biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com><br>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 2:01:42 AM<br>> Subject: Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar - <br>> Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br>><br>> Quoting rongretlarson@comcast.net:<br>><br>>> Kevin and ccs:<br>>><br>>> 1. This is getting complicated - as the dialog has shifted from the<br>>> BFW story on Africa/Rademakers over to the IBI material.prepared by<br>>> Kelpie Wilson. My perception is that you are looking for specific<br>>> information from both reports that were not intended and aren't<br>>> there. So I see no reason to respond to your questions about<br>>> Kelpie's IBI work .<br>><br>> # This is not complicated at all:<br>> a: BFW presents a report on biochar tests<br>> b. "Defenders of the Faith" demonize BFW, rather than showing where<br>> their Report is wrong in a factual, scientific, and professional manner.<br>> c: I made no mention of Kelpie's work.<br>> d: You would appear to be clouding the issue, to avoid dealing with<br>> the matter in a factual way. I am amused that you criticize me for<br>> asking for information that is not in the report, and which the report<br>> did not intend to convey (why the corn with biochar grew so well), yet<br>> you do not criticize Erich when he assumes that it was the biochar,<br>> and not other conditions, that made the corn grow so well. (more<br>> water, fertilizer, organic matter, manure, compost, better soil in<br>> general, better test management, etc.)<br>>><br>>> 2. The BFW story was covered on the biochar lists about a month ago; see:<br>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-production/message/833<br>>> It is unfortunate that this story is started over again on the<br>>> stoves list. It doesn't belong - there is zero stoves aspect to the<br>>> BFW story..<br>><br>> # You yourself are using the Stoves List as a way to promote biochar<br>> production! How can you possibly say that the Article has no relevance<br>> to Stoves? If the BFW Article has a valid basis, then it would suggest<br>> that the potential for biochar is diminished. Nobody so far has<br>> refuted their article in a rational manner. Can you?<br>>><br>>> 3. I look forward to hearing your reaction to the selected quotes<br>>> from BFW's report - which I presume you have not yet read.<br>><br>> # I have read the BFW Report. What are the "Selected Quotes" to which<br>> you refer?<br>><br>> Best wishes for a happy and Prosperous 2012<br>><br>> Kevin<br>>><br>>> Ron<br>>> :<br>>><br>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>>> From: "Kevin C" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net><br>>> To: biochar@yahoogroups.com<br>>> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 8:37:12 AM<br>>> Subject: Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -<br>>> Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br>>><br>>><br>> <snip><br>><br><br><br><br></div></body></html>