Same ol' same ol', amended

More fun! SFSE has filed an answer [PDF] to the amended petition.

Actually, it’s quite boring; there’s nothing exciting to say about anything here.

It’s probably time to move on to more exciting old topics, like the cashmere content scandal (which is still playing out, but is currently unexciting since everyone has rehashed the details over and over) and cancelling distribution agreements (which was almost overwith, but not quite).

This entry was posted in stitch v. bitch, themes. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Same ol' same ol', amended

  1. Penny says:

    I agree that proving the yarn contains goat fibre is not the same as proving it contains cashmere.

    However, the rival’s tests said that the yarn contained X % sheep’s wool and Y % manmade stuff, where X+Y=100. If the rival’s tests are right, then it can contain no cashmere, no mohair, no angora, no cotton, no soysilk etc.

    The manufacturor’s DNA tests said that it contained Z % goat’s fibres. Whether that Z % was cashmere is irrelevant. It means that X+Y

  2. Elaine says:

    No, one of the tests does not have to be wrong. The DNA test will prove that the yarn contains ‘goat’ fiber. ‘Goat’ fiber must be below 17 microns to be considered Cashmere. The second test shows that although the fiber came from a goat, it is not Cashmere quality. Note: Mohair is also a goat fiber but is not Cashmere.

  3. Penny says:

    Sorry, pressed the submit too soon.

    If the rival manufacturor had submitted several yarns and none passed the test, doesn’t that bring into question the validity of the test?

    Last thought, the rival’s tests seem to be saying this yarn has artificial stuff and sheep stuff in it. The DNA tests from the yarn manyfacturor say that the yarns have goat stuff in as well, which brings into question the validity of the rival’s tests. It doesn’t really matter whether the goat stuff is cashmere or not: the rival’s tests have said “there is zero goat stuff”, so one set of tests has to be wrong.

  4. Penny says:

    I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the whole cashmere scandal. Most of the comments I have read seem to be based around the commenters view of the industry participants rather then any logical or legal analysis of the situation.

    For instance if there really is a problem with a particular yarn, why has the rival manufacturor not gone to the US equivalent of Trading Standards (who in Britain will investigate such matters, and persecute if appropriate) rather then spreading rumours about it? And anyway, why were the rivals getting the yarns tested, and which yarns did they test and have ‘pass’ the tests? If none did,

  5. minnie says:

    i won’t be buying cashmere. apparently the big box stores clued into it being a money maker, and the herders who raise the goats who give cashmere have overgrazed the area in china so badly that the gobi desert is growing by hundreds of square miles every year. i even linked the story on my blog.

    and SFSE is a bunch of blooming idiots. sheesh.