While we had been aware of the AwasMIFEE article since its publication, we had chosen not to respond to it because we felt that whatever we said would not be received with an open mind. AwasMIFEE has not vouched facts related to its publication and has never tried to contact us to validate the related facts.

When BHRRC carried their article and asked us for a rejoinder, however, we agreed to your request. This was because we did our due diligence on your organization and are convinced that you believe in wanting to arrive at the truth, in fair play and an in an open-minded approach to the usually emotive issue of sustainability.

We therefore provided our response to BHRRC, which included substantiation of the facts. We think you will agree that a careful reading of AwasMIFEE’s rejoinder will show that they have not refuted a single claim of ours with factual evidence, but rather with trying to pass off intent as fact, with straw man arguments and with transitive logic.

While mindful of the need for openness and transparency, we feel that we have adequately addressed the allegations against us and do not wish to engage in further unconstructive polemics. We would expect to be held responsible by BHRCC to substantiate any accusation or allegation, should we make it against others. We hope BHRRC will hold AwasMIFEE to this standard as well and put a stop in distributing one-sided allegations.