Bry,
Perhaps you should do your own research before debunking that of others.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...=doi1068248028
( http://www.sciencenews.org/20020629/food.asp (Week of June 29, 2002;
Vol. 161, No. 26)

Mortality rate at 55% in concentrations as low as .5% (one-half percent).
Repellent at .1%. As long as they are gone, I don't care whether they died
or whether they simply moved to friendlier soil so I won't debate you
about what my final application rate was. The stuff is deadly in the
concentrations normal for NoDoze.

I broadcast fresh grounds at about twice the rate I would apply fertilizer
to my lawn. I had hoped to give folks a better number to work with by now,
but the stuff works so well, there hasn't been much reason to re-applyit.
My best guess as to an application rate would be about 1# per 100 sq ft. I
have 280 sq ft (I garden in raised boxes so I have a pretty good handle on
my sq footage) and I get almost two applications from a 5# can.

Okay ... you've got the research links. Debate _them_ if you want. I've
provided my proofs and won't waste more time defending what I KNOW (from
research and direct personal experience) to be true with someone who has
done neither the research nor the actual experimentation.

Bry, I think the Brits on this list are well able to clue you in about tea
and caffeine and Queen Victoria. That they haven't already is a testament
to their generally good manner. However, as a 51 year old American, I can
assure you that my mother was not a "Victorian" woman.

Nonetheless, I didn't get this recipe from her -- I got it from the
research conducted at the University of Hawaii that was published in June
of 2002.

You are guessing. I am speaking from experience. Have a nice day.

Bill

"Bill" wrote:

Bry,
Perhaps you should do your own research before debunking that of others.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...=doi1068248028
( http://www.sciencenews.org/20020629/food.asp (Week of June 29, 2002;
Vol. 161, No. 26)

Mortality rate at 55% in concentrations as low as .5% (one-half percent).
Repellent at .1%. As long as they are gone, I don't care whether they died
or whether they simply moved to friendlier soil so I won't debate you
about what my final application rate was. The stuff is deadly in the
concentrations normal for NoDoze.

I broadcast fresh grounds at about twice the rate I would apply fertilizer
to my lawn. I had hoped to give folks a better number to work with by now,
but the stuff works so well, there hasn't been much reason to re-applyit.
My best guess as to an application rate would be about 1# per 100 sq ft. I
have 280 sq ft (I garden in raised boxes so I have a pretty good handle on
my sq footage) and I get almost two applications from a 5# can.

Okay ... you've got the research links. Debate _them_ if you want. I've
provided my proofs and won't waste more time defending what I KNOW (from
research and direct personal experience) to be true with someone who has
done neither the research nor the actual experimentation.

Bry, I think the Brits on this list are well able to clue you in about tea
and caffeine and Queen Victoria. That they haven't already is a testament
to their generally good manner. However, as a 51 year old American, I can
assure you that my mother was not a "Victorian" woman.

Nonetheless, I didn't get this recipe from her -- I got it from the
research conducted at the University of Hawaii that was published in June
of 2002.

You are guessing. I am speaking from experience. Have a nice day.

Bill

What are you talking about? Some context might help.

--
Susan N.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.

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://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/showth...threadid=15502

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! People who don't share your opinion can instantly be discredited on this basis alone. It is clear to me now, had I read the same information as you and done the slightest bit of research I would now be incapable of using my own mind to form my own opinion based on contrary information. I would of course be forced to entirely agree with you. In an ideal world where everyone is privy to the same high standard of knowledge as you, we would all become a homogeneous mass of ideas and thoughts, personal views would vanish, 'opinion' would become a dead word, and you would be surounded by sycophants.

I now realise it was madness to think there can be more than one inteligent view on the matter, in fact there can only be one right answer to everything and should anyone else think different they are not an individual, they are a clueless little imbecile (such as myself, as you so blatently pointed out), and such people must be subjected to accusations of stupidity and less than witty attempts at irony and rhetoric to prove their inferior views.

Bry

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. She lived a further eighteen years untill 1901, when she died at the good age of 82. I stilll remember this quote fondly by memory as it was the opening line in an essay I wrote which boosted my marks enough to get a degree in history. This is how I knew and said his grandmother lived in Victorian times and not his mother as you quoted me writing. 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 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.

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.

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.

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).

Do you still want to match intellects?

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.

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.
--

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:50:34 -0500, Noydb
wrote:

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.

Bill - please send me private email so that I have your
email address. I have some information you may find very
interesting.

Send to:

Pat
--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:50:34 -0500, Noydb
wrote:



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.


First, I would like to give notice to all and sundry that I
have strong feelings about the copyright of whatever I
write, and I expressly do NOT give anyone permission to use
my writings anywhere.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way...

Second, I know nothing of the issues of this thread and do
not care about them either, and couldn't care less about who
said what or whichever in this thread, in this particular
Usenet newsgroup (rec.gardens.edible).

I *do* care about copyright violation affecting Usenet
newsgroups in which I participate.

Therefore, I offer the following general information.

I offer this without implying in any way that anyone's
copyright has been violated or has not been, as I do not
know the circumstances.

General copyright information for others:

-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.benedict.com - The Copyright Site. The author of
this site is a copyright attorney. It says, in part,

"almost any original expression that is fixed in a tangible
form is protected as soon as it is expressed. For example, a
graphic created in Photoshop is protected as soon as the
file is saved to disk. This Web page was protected as soon
as I stopped typing and saved the .html file. As you can
see, most of the items that you are likely to encounter on
the net are eligible for copyright protection, including the
text of web pages, ASCII text documents, contents of email
and Usenet messages, sound files, graphics files, executable
computer programs and computer program listings."

and

"Copyrighted works on the net include news stories,
software, novels, screenplays, graphics, pictures, Usenet
messages and even email. In fact, the frightening reality is
that almost everything on the Net is protected by copyright
law."


http://www.benedict.com/info/registration/what.asp

-----------------------------------------------------------

Also the USA Copyright Office - very clear explanations of
the USA's copyright laws.

http://www.loc.gov/copyright

I believe that most countries are signatories to the Berne
Convention and honor each other's copyright laws.

BTW, the notice I include below is *not* necessary to
establish copyright.

Cheers,
Pat

Copyright © 2003 Patricia Meadows
All Rights Reserved


--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:37:24 GMT, Bry
wrote:



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?

As I posted a few minutes ago, this is absolutely untrue.

Your website -- gardenbanter.co.uk -- has no association
with rec.gardens.edible and you are violating the copyright
of posters on this newsgroup by republishing their writings
elsewhere without their permission. It is also unethical,
in my opinion, as you are stealing the intellectual property
of others.

I suggest that anyone else who objects to this (I most
certainly do), send complaints to gardenbanter.co.uk's web
hosting service. Send your complaints to:

and

Explain to them that you had NOT given permission for this
illegal and intellectually dishonest taking of your writings
and republishing of them in another venue. Include copies
of your posts to this newsgroup, with full headers.

My post, expressly stating that I did not give permission
for the reuse of my writings appeared he

http://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/showth...threadid=46848

(The whole thread is here -- or is here until someone takes
it down.)

Ask Ripe.net to take action to stop this. Be polite and
friendly in your note to Ripe.net - it's not their fault,
they're in all probability unaware of it.

You can also send posts to rec.gardens.edible stating that
you do not give permission to anyone else to take your
writings and publish them in another venue.

Since the process is automated, these posts will appear on
the gardenbanter.co.uk website and will reveal this practice
for what it is, as well as making the website owner look
pretty stupid.

This is the sort of thing that has all but killed Usenet
newsgroups and it's a terrible shame that people have abused
a once-wonderful resource that was free to all.

Pat Meadows
Copyright © 2003 Patricia Meadows
All Rights Reserved
No re-publication of this posting to any other venue will be
permitted.


--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

Pat, perhaps I should have been clearer, www.gardenbanter.co.uk is *not* my site and I do not own, manage or even claim to fully understand how it works.

It is an HTML reader for several newsgroups, I simply use it to read and post here. I also have no idea about the copyright issues regarding this, in fact I hadn't considered them untill I read your post. Either way, I'm not responsible for them. The only thing in this site I can claim ownership to is my posts, and I suspect I gave away copyright to some extent when I pressed submit.

I'm also under the impression it is provided by the people/person who set up these newsgroups, or with their permission, although I unfortunatly can't prove this.

I'd urge anyone to do some research and find out what is going on before they start writing complaints, otherwise it could cause unfair problems for the person who does manage this site, something I believe they do as a helpful service to visitors. As someone who does run a site (which is of course *not*, www.gardenbanter.co.uk), I know that unfounded or mistaken complaints can cause trouble with some hosts that do more action that research.

I'd also be grateful if someone could step foward and explain what the connection between this site and the newsgroups are before this gets any further confused.

Bry

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:57:13 GMT, Bry
wrote:

Pat, perhaps I should have been clearer, www.gardenbanter.co.uk is *not*
my site and I do not own, manage or even claim to fully understand how
it works.

It is an HTML reader for several newsgroups, I simply use it to read
and post here. I also have no idea about the copyright issues regarding
this, in fact I hadn't considered them untill I read your post. Either
way, I'm not responsible for them. The only thing in this site I can
claim ownership to is my posts, and I suspect I gave away copyright to
some extent when I pressed submit.

I'm also under the impression it is provided by the people/person who
set up these newsgroups, or with their permission, although I
unfortunatly can't prove this.

I'd urge anyone to do some research and find out what is going on
before they start writing complaints, otherwise it could cause unfair
problems for the person who does manage this site, something I believe
they do as a helpful service to visitors.

I did the research before I complained. I know more than a
bit about newsgroups and how they work (that I haven't
posted here.) You can do the research too, or you can take
my word for it.

In this case, I didn't need to do awfully much research
about how Usenet newsgroup work as I have been participating
in them for well over 15 years and my husband has for well
over 20 years: long before a World Wide Web existed.

Being a possibly helpful service to visitors does not
justify the theft of intellectual property nor the violation
of copyright.

I could take the writings of others without permission too,
and put them on a website, and lots of people might find it
helpful. It would still be unethical and illegal (in the
USA at least).

As someone who does run a
site (which is of course *not*, www.gardenbanter.co.uk), I know that
unfounded or mistaken complaints can cause trouble with some hosts that
do more action that research.

That's the risk that Middleton (if indeed it is he, which I
believe to be true) runs when he takes the writings of
others without their permission. Live by the sword, die by
the sword.

I'd also be grateful if someone could step foward and explain what the
connection between this site and the newsgroups are before this gets
any further confused.


There is no connection between the newsgroup and that
website. So that one is easy to answer.

I'm glad it's not you, anyway, but it's still unethical and
illegal in the USA.

Pat
--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:57:13 GMT, Bry
wrote:

Pat, perhaps I should have been clearer, www.gardenbanter.co.uk is *not*
my site and I do not own, manage or even claim to fully understand how
it works.

PS to my prior answer: if you have no association with
gardenbanter.co.uk ...just why is it in your posting
address?

You post through Tera News, a news service which effectively
wipes out the path, so I cannot trace your postings back to
their source.

Below is the full header of your post, the one which I am
answering now.

Pat

X-Abuse-Report:
Message-ID:
m
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!peer01.cox.net!peer02.cox.net!cox.net!ne ws3.optonline.net!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.teranews.c om!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:57:13 GMT
Lines: 11
From: Bry
Newsgroups: rec.gardens.edible
Subject: Oh really?
Organization: posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk
User-Agent: via www.GardenBanter.co.uk
X-Newsreader: via www.GardenBanter.co.uk
X-Originating-IP: 217.137.99.37
References:








Xref: uni-berlin.de rec.gardens.edible:95562

--
To email me, remove the trap and type my first
name in its place.

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry

I allready said, I have no association aside from using it. To use it I need an account though which I post, this account doesn't show my email address (probably because of the million of spamers who collect email addresses from newsgroups), instead it invents or gives these random emails addresses. I think it collects email from them and passes it on, but so far I've never used it and can't be sure.

If you still don't believe me and want to see for yourself, sign up for an account and make a test post. You will find it invents an email with your user ID in it somewhere and a load of junk characters/numbers.

Anyway, I have to wonder why you're trying to trace my posts to the source?

Bry

wrote in message
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:37:24 GMT, Bry
wrote:

(snip) 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. (snip)

As I posted a few minutes ago, this is absolutely untrue.

Your website -- gardenbanter.co.uk -- has no association
with rec.gardens.edible and you are violating the copyright
of posters on this newsgroup by republishing their writings
elsewhere without their permission.

I'm quite curious as to how you know this for certain. Were you around when
rec.gardens.edible was created?

I ask because I know that there are some gatewayed ngs (the same posts
appear in differing internet guises) and I just wonder if there is such a
set up here that was created at some time in the past.

It is also unethical,
in my opinion, as you are stealing the intellectual property
of others.

?????? that doesn't make sense. Bry is a poster whose posts come to this
forum through an alternate means. Bry is no more stealing your posts than
you are stealing his/hers.


I suggest that anyone else who objects to this (I most
certainly do),

I think more information is needed before I'd climb on my high horse over
this.

The only FAQ I can find for this ng relates to herbs so no help there.

If I understand correctly, the problem you all are arguing about is that one
person may have put a post from the newsgroup on their own blog or website.

If I'm not mistaken, and I honestly don't think I am, as long as that person
gives the correct attribution to the original writer, they're pretty much
home free. They'd need to cite the date and newgroup as well, but it falls
under the "fair use" exemption, if I'm not mistaken. The problem would only
be if the website didn't include the attribution, but rather quoted it as
their own work.

Philip

It's just become obvious what is going on, and I feel justified to think everyone was rushing headlong in to a badly thought out copyright tyrade.

It might suprise some people, but usenet is not one server or just one location where messages are stored, it comprises of over an estimated minimum 15,000 computers world wide. Each one of these stores the messages individually, how they get there is quite interesting too. Several people incorrectly expressed concern that I might be copying their articles and pasting them on a site (something I wasn't doing, although that's now irrelevant), this annoyed them so much, I can only assume they don't realise what happened when they pressed 'submit'. Their article went to their usenet server, which then copied it about FIFTY times and sent it to another FIFTY servers, which then made FIFTY more copies and sent it to another FIFTY servers... Within the hour, there were thousands of coppies across the world on thousands of computers, then when people connected to the newsgroup the messages were duplicated again and again and again as users downloaded them to their computer to read. By now, these messages must have surpassed 60,000 copys world wide, which isn't suprising as many people's computers store hundereds of old messages from usenet in the email reader.

But what about websites like the one I unknowing started all this over by posting a link to? They're just one of the 15,000 usenet servers your messages are sent to automatically, this is not a violation of copyright or usenet, this *is* a vital part of usenet. Rather than do what most people's usenet servers do and send it to their email program, it presents the saved messages as HTML documents. It's a perfectly valid and legal way to view posts on a usenet server since they can serve them in any format they feel like, weather it's to enhance accessibility or to make them compatible with different computer systems. If you could actually prevent this copying and distribution in different forms by law, usenet simply wouldn't exist without breaking the law. It *must* copy the messages to work as no single computer could serve such a wide audience.

What is being implyed is that we should victemise one single usenet server out of thousands for copying our messages, despite the fact all servers copy them by default. The fact people are getting upset by this entirely normal situation would be amusing if it wasn't causing such a fiasco...

If anyone is still uncomfortable with the idea that their personal writing might be copied. Perhaps usenet which instantly duplicates and distributes thousands of copys of their writing is not the best place for them to post?

Bry