GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Bry · 09-11-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Noydb
Bry wrote:

Some context would have been helpful, even for me as I was wondering for
at least the first paragraph what was going on... Bill was actually
talking about one of my posts where I said that coffee killing slugs
was junk science, the link is:

http://tinyurl.com/u90u

Bill, I have to agree entirely with you, it is all true. I am clearly
lacking information and talking rubish, after all I dissagree with you!
(clipped)

I find it
disturbing you can rip in to my post and opinion so bluntly without
having fully read it in any detail, which I doubt you did as I said
grandmother/grannie three times in that post...
--
Bry

Your post said "A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to
dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree - Dr. Leonard
George, born in Victorian 1883 when Queen Victoria was sixty four years
old."

And your lavish use of sarcasm is a sign of your deep respect for my
viewpoint? I hardly think so. You are attempting to claim some sort of
moral high-ground. I don't think you can hold it.

I don't believe in moral high grounds and certainly don't attempt to hold any, the suggestion of a moral high ground implys there is only one morally right view in a situation - something I wouldn't normally think.

Bry ... what did the links I provided show? Did they show support for your
assertions or for mine? Unless you can present similar links supporting
your viewpoint, your continued skepticism remains unsupported by the
available facts.

This has nothing to do with how valid my views are under someone else's scrutiny, and I haven't and won't try to persuade you I'm right about coffee killing slugs. This is about my right to have an opinion that differs from someone else, without narrow minded people like you verbally attcking me in every way possible.

You claim to possess a degree in history. To me, that indicates that you
should have a decent grip on the concept of intellectual integrity; yet you
have sarcastically derided my assertions while posting nothing but hearsay
and opinion as counterpoint. You refuted nothing by an opposition of fact
and slandered everything by an opposition of sarcasm.

I could resort to applying words like 'claim' and even 'pretend' to what you've said to make you sould uncreditable, but that is little more than petty.
As for your discription of my post, I was using irony to highlight your self centered view of right and wrong, which seems to revolve around you being right and everyone else being wrong.

Your writing is both good and original. However, that part which was good
was not original, being a pale copy of a speech given by a Shakespearan
character in the play "Julius Caesar" (it is well after 2 a.m. and I can
not recall just which character and am even a tad uncertain of the exact
name of the play but, the character was inhibited from condemning someone
so he instead heaped unbelieveable, and unbelieved, praise upon him). And,
lamentably, the part that was original was not good. Sarcasm rarely makes
for good writing. (With apologies to Oscar Wilde for the liberties I have
taken with his scathing review of a young writer he had caught indulging in
plagarism).

My irony was not entirely original, this one has been used before, but I'm not familiar with the speach you're talking about.
Either way, you weren't intended to enjoy my post, and last time I checked this wasn't a writing critique workshop.

Do you still want to match intellects?

If you continue to attack my views where everyone can see, I will continue to defend myself.

I am willing to consider your supporting facts when / if you present some,
but I am an old man who simply isn't interested in your sarcasm. While you
sneer at the ideas of others, including myself and the researchers at the
University of Hawaii, you have presented nothing to refute even a single
one of those ideas.

I have nothing to prove to you. YOU sought me out and wrote the first post, I did not. I also didn't address you in my post claiming it doesn't work, but you made me the feature of your's and proceded to alternate from science to mud slinging. I'm not even going to pretend this is about coffee grounds, because it isn't. For one reason or another (I could guess a few, but can't be sure which), you've taken a dislike to me and decided to write a scathing post and place in purposefully at the top of the newsgroup in it's own thread to get maximum attention. Unlike you, it doesn't suit my agenda to hide behind a cover story.

On another note, I am additionally offended that you would take the postings
from this group and use them as filler on your own blog
(http://tinyurl.com/u90u ) as it dishonestly gives the appearance that I
have posted to your blog. I have not and will not. While probably legal to
transfer my words, it is certainly unethical. I posted _here_, on a public
forum and I do not want my writing to serve to enrich you on your private
forum. Replies to what I have said should, ethically, _also_be_posted_here_
so that both I and others could see the full thread of the postings and
arrive at our own conclusions.

I yield to your superior intellect, Bry. You, after all, have a degree in
history. That pretty much guarantees that you know more about gardening
than almost anyone else who posts here.
Bill

PS:
In a posting to YOUR blog on August 19, 2003 at 1:44 A.M., 'hrafndot'
(Rachel) stated that the pH of the coffee grounds coming from Starbucks is
about 6.8. She seems rather definite in her assertion. And that, from your
own blog, would refute your assertion that coffee grounds lowered soil pH
in "chalky soil" enough to kill the vegetation planted there. Given that
veggies WANT soil in that pH range (or even lower), it sounds to me like it
was the alkaline soil that was responsible for their deaths. BTW, I just
measured the pH of my own spent coffee grounds (Folgers). Rachel is right.
My grounds measured about 6.9pH.

PPS: I thought you'd like to know that I saved the web page my
rec.gardens.edible posting appeared on. Even if your attorney thinks
swiping stuff from a newsgroup is okay, I'd still like to run the idea past
my attorney if you don't mind.

Don't bother... It will save you some embarrassment when you realise that the site I linked to, www.gardenbanter.co.uk is in fact not my blog as you suggested, but is actually the *official HTML viewer to this newsgroup*. I have no control over what is posted there, it simply mirrors all the posts sent by people such as you who use an email reader to access the group. Again, I sit here in dismay wondering how anyone could live to 51 with the attitude; shoot first forget to ask questions later. It's suprising how many accusations you can churn out a minute, are you just hoping one of them is going to stick before your brash attitude entirely discredits you?

--