I was censored today. I shouldn’t be surprised. I should probably be censored more often. Nevertheless, it shocks me and pisses me off a bit.
I post occasionally to an international forum owned by an American Company. A post, containing information about EM, etc and linking to a useful chart of dilutions and referencing my websites in the signature was cut apart leaving only a fraction of the advise, and none of the relevance. I didn’t realize that providing helpful information was so controvertial. I wasn’t thinking that rival companies would be battling it out in a public forum for control of a technology in the public domain.
Nevertheless, I recieved this:
Dear Podchef:
Please do not include links to materials that refer to or promote technologies that are not of the authentic EM, "Effective Microorganisms (TM)".
Please also remove the links from your signature from all of your posts, past and future, since the linked site promotes different products/technologies that would confuse others.
The EM Online Forum was created to motivate discussions on EM Technology (TM) and for users to share their thoughts and experiences with EM (Effective Microorganisms) Technology. It was not meant for other products/technologies sold or promoted under similar names.
For your reference, below is a copy of the Important Notice: We wish to ensure the authenticity of Effective Microorganisms and EM products.
—
April 19, 2004
Greetings EM visitors:
Due to confusion by the public and customers, we are providing the following statement of clarification.
The Board of Directors of EM Technology Network would like to inform all visitors that EM Technology Network is receiving many inquiries from around the world about EM/Effective Microorganisms. The information in this Web site is for EM or Effective Microorganisms, a technology developed by Prof. Dr. Teruo Higa of the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa, Japan. We would like to inform viewers of this site that there are many products similar to Effective Microorganisms that use the same or similar name, or the acronym "EM". Many of these products make claims of the same purpose or make claims crossing the bounds of legality and business ethics, or even state the same or similar microorganisms and/or ingredients.
None of these products are to be considered the same as Effective Microorganisms as developed by Prof. Dr. Teruo Higa. We recognize that many users have been confused by this situation. Therefore, we would like to give you some suggestions to find the authentic Effective Microorganisms products in your area of the world.
To identify Effective Microorganisms or EM products produced by an authorized manufacturer, look for the EM logo on the product itself. It is a series of green dots in a circle (see the notice online for the image) and is only found on authorized EM products.
There are companies, organizations, individuals and Web sites that are NOT AUTHORIZED to use or display the EM logo. To confirm the legitimacy of the company and Web site, please contact the appropriate e-mail below.Please contact the following for authentic EM products:
World headquarters: overseas@emro.co.jp
In Europe: hide.kuwabara@gmx.de
In Central and South America: keita-k@emro.co.jp
In China: research@public1.ptt.js.cn
emro@public1.ptt.js.cn (Chinese)
In the US: info@emrousa.com
In Asia (except China and Japan), Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East:
apnanmail@yahoo.co.jp
We appreciate your activities and support in spreading the EM Technology throughout the world. (my highlight)
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors
EM TECHNOLOGY NETWORK
info@emtechnologynetwork.org
www.emtechnologynetwork.org
—
I sent back a curt reply. I’m not sure I really want to participate in such a closed minded forum, no matter what the goal or end is. I feel bad for the people who were asking me for infomation though. I love the counter-sentiment in the highlighted sentance. Shouldn’t that include–as long as you don’t represent, support or link to rival information? Go figure. Granted it IS their forum and they can or cannot allow whatever they feel, but it is hardly a fair use of free information. No wonder there is a paucity of information out there on EM and how to use it. To further add insult to injury I did not intentionally "include links to materials that refer to or promote technologies that are not of the authentic EM, "Effective Microorganisms (TM)". What I did do was use this link, which provided the only information of the sort I could find and does not solicit sales. And as far as I know this information is as authentic as it gets. It is interesting, however, that as of today this site has sprung up claiming to be the only legitimate source of EM Technology. I think, however, I am luck to have stumbled upon SCD months ago and not their, apparently, bitter rivals.
Who knew that this morning I would innocently stumble into some sort of turf war over microbes? Not I. For my money I know which side I’m going to stick to. . . .
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t get it. The EM Technology Network doesn’t even seem to be marketing anything besides literature, and both sites acknowledge Prof. Higa as their founder/guru. What are those boys so jealously guarding? This seems just a step removed from claiming the rights to Recycling(tm).
I am as perplexed as you. I haven’t hear anything from my inquiries yet today, but I suspect it is all a battle over trademarking words like ‘em technology’ & ‘effective microbes’ and it seems to boil down to two companies who swear, and I formerly had no reason to doubt, their combination of microbes is the authentic combination of microbes. Bizzarre. Methinks EM Tech protests too much. The larger picture they paint is one of protecting from fraud by people who brew up their own brown juice and sell it as EM, but surely the fraudsters fall away rapidly when there product doesn’t work as good as legit company’s. I can understand patenting a process or limiting a secret technology, but this isn’t even that. And it’s not even patenting life–the microbes reside everywhere. Anyone could technically make the stuff. Perhaps that’s what scared them–the passing of information which will lead to people creating thier own mother cultures. . . .
What even more pisses me off is some of the text they cut was a recipe I’ve been working on for a non-toxic, dare you to drink it Flea spray which I was sharing the technique for making for the first time. I haven’t even written down the formula or method for myself, and now no one has it–unless they’ve stolen it and are planning on growing it and releasing it on their own. . .
Here’s more information than you (certainly more than I) want to know about the hairsplitting differences in EM companies, products, trademarks and the like.
http://www.eminfo.info/moreem1.html#Names
At least the lawyers are getting rich over this. I guess if Monsanto can patent a few thousand genes, EM Tech can try to lay claim to a few billion microbes.
I’ve seen that before but never stopped to read it. I think now they’ve dropped the EM-1 differentiation and are trying to confuse the issue even more. Read the newest post for more on the obscurity.