On 06/06/18 22:25, Derek wrote:

Would you mind not falsely editing my post to make it look as if I
replied to you above?

I was responding to this

.In article ,
says...

The results of this study will be interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44357663

Janet



Would you care to explain just what you are objecting too? The answer
I gave was to the discussion in general, reposting the complete thread
every time is pointless.
In no way would I ever knowinly falsely edit any ones post, and have
not ever done it in the 20 + years I have been using this newsgroup.

If I have made an error a simple polite correction would have been in
order

Derek

From an independent observer's point of view...

Janet's original post said (with my emphasis between the **):-

"Pity they aren't including wood ash in the trial. When we had a
woodstove I used to put a circle of the fine ash round individual
brassicas and in rows between the strawberries, *which seemed to work
well*."

Your reply to, and including, her snipped post (again, my emphasis
between the **):

" Pity they aren't including wood ash in the trial.
Janet

Well they did, *and it was not a succes*, after all the slug rides on
mucus, so most materials willnot stop them "

Your reply indicates a direct opposite to what she had found when she
tried wood ash. In addition, the BBC page made no mention of wood ash as
far as I can see, so your use of "they" is misleading in that anyone
reading it would believe it referred to the RHS trial. In any case, that
trial has only just started, so if you know of someone who tried wood
ash in another trial you are referring to, and if it was not a success,
could you please post a link to it.

--

Jeff