Talk:Effective microorganism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
On Schluggells defense. |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Oh well. |
Oh well. |
||
1>Many companies use this term, it is not even necessarily meant to be trademarked as it is worded in the article. Until recently many companies weren't offering the number of products. |
|||
And some of the other companies products are inferior at any rate. |
|||
2>Other companies that sell these types of products are even more proprietary, EMRO discloses how the product is made AND from what sources - and underwrites many volunteer efforts. And none of it is patented from a test tube culture {like some companies}. |
|||
Revision as of 08:11, 16 August 2006
My first article from scratch, and had two automatic interwiki links that I didn't have to bring up myself! Darned computer logged me off when I saved so I couldn't see my name in the history log. Oh well, always next time...Now for fine-tuning.
Schlüggell | Talk 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the neutrality is disputed give me some ideas of how this is not a nutral article. All I've done is relate the info of proprietary products from sources of various languages.
This sounds more like an advertisement than a neutral data-driven article. Too bad. If I had been able to access a diversity of information on EM I might have actually bought some.
Oh well.
1>Many companies use this term, it is not even necessarily meant to be trademarked as it is worded in the article. Until recently many companies weren't offering the number of products. And some of the other companies products are inferior at any rate.
2>Other companies that sell these types of products are even more proprietary, EMRO discloses how the product is made AND from what sources - and underwrites many volunteer efforts. And none of it is patented from a test tube culture {like some companies}.