David Bostwick wrote:
In article . com, wrote:


Dano wrote:


Wow. Fantastically bad idea.

1. All that absorbed heat will affect plant tissue near shingles.
2. Heavy metals in manufacture.
3. Gas exchange modification.
4. Other mulches return nutrients to the soil (try, say, 8 in, of
straw, or cardboard and grass clippings).
5. You'll look like a kook.

Really. Natural mulches, please.

D

Tar paper pots that many plants come in. Take tar-paper pots to each of
your above and see how silly and stupid is your attitude and argument.

Why is it so difficult for a given mind, a given person to be objective
rather than subjective. To be able to make a list of objective
arguments rather than a list of subjective hogwash which merely echoes
ad hominem.

Perhaps graduate schools of all the sciences should have a course where
not only is ethics and morals taught but where students are give a test
that measures whether their personality is such that they would not be
good in making science their career.



Dishwashing 101 comes to mind.


Many of the posters on the internet to the sci newsgroups who have a
degree in science, judging from their accumulating posts should have
their science degree revoked. The idea that when a student graduates

from University in a science carries that degree no matter what further

happens in his/her life should be changed to that of a possible
revoking of that degree because the person is more anti-science and has
abandoned the objectivity that science demands.



Disagreeing with you does not appear to be grounds for revoking someone's
degree.

When do they want your diploma back?



So tell me, if tar-paper pots are commonly used then what exactly is
wrong with tar shingles for mulch?



Amount of material, unless you make *really* thick-walled pots..
Other materials in the shingles - see above.
Persistence in the environment - see above.

Number 5 does not apply. That assessment has already been made.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies



Apparently some posts are getting through but not showing up on Google.
Maybe Google is down or maybe someone has found a way of censorship of
"no see um" and censoring the posts of Archimedes Plutonium.

Both Uncle Al-- Alan Schwartz and David Bostwick have a history of
Internet posts of an abusive pattern of ad hominem. Hate spamming and
inability to discuss objectively. Both should have their degree in
science, provided they have a degree, revoked. In society when we award
people with honors and merits we also revoke for those who reflect
negatively on their career field. Who have a pattern of abuse that is
counter to science. When people become criminals they are revoked of
voting and other civil liberties. When people fan hatred and ad hominem
to the extent of Alan Schwartz and David Bostwick they should have their
degrees in science revoked.

Can someone tell me why Google is not showing up my posts of the
previous night and today as per the newsgroups of sci.physics.fusion and
sci.bio.botany on the subjects of ITER and tree mulch??

Is someone censoring Archimedes Plutonium? I did post a flammatory post
about the Iraq exit strategy and perhaps it was so flammatory that the
US govt has placed a "no see um censor" on my posts.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies