Sacha wrote:
Oh dear, how depressing.

Sorry.

And the CIs are pretty close to Cap de la Hague.
On that theme, I went with a group to visit the Nuclear Fuel plant there and
we were given a marvellous lunch. While we were commenting on how delicious
the trout were, someone remarked in a gravelly voice "they were the size of
goldfish this morning". It wasn't easy to explain that to our French hosts,
under the circumstances!

)

If, in terms of damage to the ecosystem you're thinking of harvesting the
seaweed, as far as I know they way that's done now is simply to pick up
what's been washed up by the autumn storms. I don't *think* anyone goes
down at very low water to cut it as they did once.

No. Farms are being created for this - in fact everywhere in Scotland.
Big business now because of it's 'organic' attraction. Sadly
Ascophyllum entensive harvesting in the Outer Hebrides show signs of
recovery only after 6 years. The culture also is thought to have a
significant effect on the ecosystems surrounding the farms, primarily
because of the increased detritus, cover and surface area that the
seaweeds provide when cultured en masse. The fact that many of the
seaweed farms are in sheltered fjords and inlets also means that
currents to remove the excess nutrients are weak, exacerbating the
problem. In addition, some of the artefacts of plantation schemes (such
as anchors for the growing nets) are slow to degrade and may remain in
the cultivation areas for many years.

But they're continually trying to redress the problem ... but as the
demands increase. One just hopes one doesn't get too greedy with the
situation indeed (

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message . com
from "La puce" contains these words:


Sacha wrote:

If, in terms of damage to the ecosystem you're thinking of harvesting
the
seaweed, as far as I know they way that's done now is simply to pick up
what's been washed up by the autumn storms. I don't *think* anyone
goes
down at very low water to cut it as they did once.

No. Farms are being created for this - in fact everywhere in Scotland.

Garbage. Yet again, you've cribbed web information you haven't got
the reading skills to comprehend, and hopelessly misrepresented what it
says. Here's the site you garbled:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/orange/sdsp-06.asp

It says, quote:

"The seaweed industry in Scotland has virtually collapsed in recent
years. Nevertheless seaweed remains one of Scotland's most abundant
plant resources, and has the potential to provide limited employment in
coastal areas. " (endquote)

Big business now because of it's 'organic' attraction.

Rubbish. The website says its a shrinking industry of small and
medium businesses (quote)

(the seaweed industry in Scotland) "It is unlikely ever to recover its
past stature, but there is considerable scope for the establishment of
small or medium-sized enterprises producing fertilisers and animal
feeds, as well as small-scale production of seaweed-based foods,
medicines and cosmetic products."

separate quote

"This industry in Scotland is far smaller than it was in the heyday of
potash and (subsequently) iodine production,32 and has recently suffered
severe setbacks, but nevertheless seaweed remains one of Scotland's most
significant wild plant resources. At present Scotland is a relatively
minor producer of seaweed in comparison with other European countries,
capturing only around 2% of the market" (end quote)



Sadly
Ascophyllum entensive harvesting in the Outer Hebrides show signs of
recovery only after 6 years. The culture also is thought to have a
significant effect on the ecosystems surrounding the farms, primarily
because of the increased detritus, cover and surface area that the
seaweeds provide when cultured en masse. The fact that many of the
seaweed farms are in sheltered fjords and inlets also means that
currents to remove the excess nutrients are weak, exacerbating the
problem. In addition, some of the artefacts of plantation schemes (such
as anchors for the growing nets) are slow to degrade and may remain in
the cultivation areas for many years.

That is absolutely outrageous plagiarism and misrepresentation. You
lifted that material straight from a website and pass it off as
something YOU wrote, or "know about". However, you also edited and
garbled it to mean the opposite of what the author wrote.

Here's just one example':

Puce misconstrued version: " Sadly
Ascophyllum entensive harvesting in the Outer Hebrides show signs of
recovery only after 6 years."

Here's what the author actually said;

" Sustainable harvesting

4.25 The seaweed species that has undergone the most in-depth harvesting
evaluations in the British Isles is Ascophylum nodosum. Tyler (1994)
examined the effects of Ascophyllum harvesting in the Outer Hebrides.
This limited study found almost complete recovery of the species and its
associated ecosystem within five to six years. However, if Ascophyllum
is cropped to approximately 20cm it should be harvestable again after 3
years. "

The culture also is thought to have a
significant effect on the ecosystems surrounding the farms, primarily
because of the increased detritus, cover and surface area that the
seaweeds provide when cultured en masse. The fact that many of the
seaweed farms are in sheltered fjords and inlets also means that
currents to remove the excess nutrients are weak, exacerbating the
problem. In addition, some of the artefacts of plantation schemes (such
as anchors for the growing nets) are slow to degrade and may remain in
the cultivation areas for many years.

You wrongly placed the above paragraph to look as if the author was
listing negative effects of what you call "Ascophyllum entensive
harvesting in the Outer Hebrides". He was not; you moved that
paragraph from a different context in a different section

To conclude, not only have you ignorantly misrepresented the facts
of Scottish seaweed businesses, you have also grossly misquoted a
website which you shamelessly plagiarised and did not even accredit as
your source.



Janet.


Good work janet.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"La puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

cough Seaweeds are very effective absorbers of marine pollutants, and
concerns over environmental pollution have considerable implications
for the commercial harvesting of Scottish wild plants for food, fodder
and medicinal purposes, as well as for mulches and fertilisers. There
is some concern about the contamination of seaweeds on the West coast
of Scotland (at least in the southern part of the country) with
radioactive isotopes from the Sellafield power station. For example,
several seaweed species act as bioaccumulators of heavy metals, and
Fucus vesiculosus (bladder wrack) growing off Islay has been found to
be contaminated with Technetium 99. As to the damage to the ecosystem,
perhaps that's another conversation. Bon appetit )


"Fucus" sums that up nicely, then!

"La puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sacha wrote:
Seaweed was the fertiliser of choice for farmers in Jersey growing Jersey
Royals, time past. Some are returning to using it now, thank goodness.
All
they did was chuck it on and let weather and nature do the rest.

cough Seaweeds are very effective absorbers of marine pollutants, and
concerns over environmental pollution have considerable implications
for the commercial harvesting of Scottish wild plants for food, fodder
and medicinal purposes, as well as for mulches and fertilisers. There
is some concern about the contamination of seaweeds on the West coast
of Scotland (at least in the southern part of the country) with
radioactive isotopes from the Sellafield power station. For example,
several seaweed species act as bioaccumulators of heavy metals, and
Fucus vesiculosus (bladder wrack) growing off Islay has been found to
be contaminated with Technetium 99. As to the damage to the ecosystem,
perhaps that's another conversation. Bon appetit )

Technetium 99--Well according to this link you don't need to worry. I will
leave it to JB to administer yet more punishment.
http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surve...io/radsurv2004

Janet Baraclough wrote:
You did not write that material, you lifted it verbatim, without
accrediting the source or copyright owners.

I don't think it is important when we are all singing the same old
song. It was part of my own project too, not so far up but for
Morecambe. I gave the facts.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/orange/sdsp-06.asp. is worth
reading to see the above in its proper, intended context, which in turn
is part of a larger report

Indeed. As with everything, the politics more or less dictate the
perishing of our coastlines, our birds, our plants ... Some of us would
be more interested in seeing the problems and not going on about the
political ramblings of an individual talking about the the money raised
through the destructive greed of organisations to sponsor research on
the destruction ... That, Janet, gets me ****ed. So I skipped the blaha
blahblah and went to the point )

(I knew there must be some grim reason why those pesky basking
sharks, dophins, porpoises, minke and killer whales, seals and otters
keep swimming round the bay outside our window. They're homing in on my
piles of glowing seaweed. )

You are indeed very lucky but perhaps the seaweeds blinding you.
Perhaps you'd consider stopping picking seaweeds from our shores?

Janet Baraclough wrote:
Garbage. Yet again, you've cribbed web information you haven't got
the reading skills to comprehend, and hopelessly misrepresented what it
says. Here's the site you garbled:
(snip)
You wrongly placed the above paragraph to look as if the author was
listing negative effects of what you call "Ascophyllum entensive
harvesting in the Outer Hebrides". He was not; you moved that
paragraph from a different context in a different section
(snip)
To conclude, not only have you ignorantly misrepresented the facts
of Scottish seaweed businesses, you have also grossly misquoted a
website which you shamelessly plagiarised and did not even accredit as
your source.

I don' t accredit anything. I'm perfectly safe in the knowledge of my
knowledge. But thanks for the concerns. Furthermore, I think I'm
repeating myself here since in my hurry I had already responded but
somehow my post doesn't show. So I won't start again my post as I don't
think I owe you any justification on my opinions.

Finally, let me assure you, and other posters, that my reading skills
are not bad considering I'm a foreigner - I gave the facts I used in my
report for Morecambe a few months ago. I am not interested in
corporates affairs when these are always to cover their destructive
methods with 'researches for a better environment'. These were the
facts I discussed - these are my interests, not quoting like you random
facts that you keep picking from the net. I am indeed very dubious of
your knowledge looking at most of your posts as I think you spend most
of your time brooming the tea rooms and carrying tea cakes.

Rupert wrote:
Technetium 99--Well according to this link you don't need to worry. I will
leave it to JB to administer yet more punishment.

What, with a leather wip? I say. But I do eat a lot of spinash and
sorrel. Would you think I'd grow a tache with the absortion of T99? Or
will it grow naturally like Janet's?

And sorry but I can't open your link.

"La puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

Janet Baraclough wrote:
Garbage. Yet again, you've cribbed web information you haven't got
the reading skills to comprehend, and hopelessly misrepresented what it
says. Here's the site you garbled:
(snip)
You wrongly placed the above paragraph to look as if the author was
listing negative effects of what you call "Ascophyllum entensive
harvesting in the Outer Hebrides". He was not; you moved that
paragraph from a different context in a different section
(snip)
To conclude, not only have you ignorantly misrepresented the facts
of Scottish seaweed businesses, you have also grossly misquoted a
website which you shamelessly plagiarised and did not even accredit as
your source.

I don' t accredit anything. I'm perfectly safe in the knowledge of my
knowledge. But thanks for the concerns. Furthermore, I think I'm
repeating myself here since in my hurry I had already responded but
somehow my post doesn't show. So I won't start again my post as I don't
think I owe you any justification on my opinions.

Finally, let me assure you, and other posters, that my reading skills
are not bad considering I'm a foreigner - I gave the facts I used in my
report for Morecambe a few months ago. I am not interested in
corporates affairs when these are always to cover their destructive
methods with 'researches for a better environment'. These were the
facts I discussed - these are my interests, not quoting like you random
facts that you keep picking from the net. I am indeed very dubious of
your knowledge looking at most of your posts as I think you spend most
of your time brooming the tea rooms and carrying tea cakes.


Well said young lady.... the book "Bloody Foreigners" points out that at one
time or another the so called Englishmen/women were all
foreigners.....suspect that 100 percent of todays "Englishman/women" has
some 'foreign' blood in them....perhaps from the days of the Roman Empire or
one of the other many invaders of that fair country......a foreigner in the
land called the USA.....albeit a 55 year resident.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
snip

(I knew there must be some grim reason why those pesky basking
sharks, dophins, porpoises, minke and killer whales, seals and otters
keep swimming round the bay outside our window. They're homing in on my
piles of glowing seaweed. )


Does your seaweed really glow, or are you alluding to the alleged
radioactive content (visions of 'nuclear' piles of seaweed in Homer
Simpson's back garden)?

On 1/12/05 10:56, in article
, "La puce"
wrote:


Janet Baraclough wrote:
Garbage. Yet again, you've cribbed web information you haven't got
the reading skills to comprehend, and hopelessly misrepresented what it
says. Here's the site you garbled:
(snip)
You wrongly placed the above paragraph to look as if the author was
listing negative effects of what you call "Ascophyllum entensive
harvesting in the Outer Hebrides". He was not; you moved that
paragraph from a different context in a different section
(snip)
To conclude, not only have you ignorantly misrepresented the facts
of Scottish seaweed businesses, you have also grossly misquoted a
website which you shamelessly plagiarised and did not even accredit as
your source.

I don' t accredit anything. I'm perfectly safe in the knowledge of my
knowledge. But thanks for the concerns. Furthermore, I think I'm
repeating myself here since in my hurry I had already responded but
somehow my post doesn't show. So I won't start again my post as I don't
think I owe you any justification on my opinions.

Finally, let me assure you, and other posters, that my reading skills
are not bad considering I'm a foreigner - I gave the facts I used in my
report for Morecambe a few months ago. I am not interested in
corporates affairs when these are always to cover their destructive
methods with 'researches for a better environment'. These were the
facts I discussed - these are my interests, not quoting like you random
facts that you keep picking from the net. I am indeed very dubious of
your knowledge looking at most of your posts as I think you spend most
of your time brooming the tea rooms and carrying tea cakes.


Your reading skills are indeed extremely poor. The person whose family runs
a Nursery with a tea room is me, not Janet. Up until now, I haven't
commented on your apparent plagiarism.
But as you're so concerned as to my occupation and how I spend my time, and
appear to think it something with which to insult me, I do not work in the
tea room, 'brooming' rooms or carrying cakes - we have a cook and staff who
do that. As I have never discussed either the Nursery or the tea room with
you, I cannot imagine how you think it any of your concern how I spend my
time. But I will return the compliment by saying that you give every
appearance of behaving like a badly trained Labrador, bouncing in and out of
here with your inane remarks and poor quality information - but without the
entertainment value of the real thing. If you choose to waste your time
doing a course you can't even read properly, that is up to you but it
certainly ill-becomes such as you to insult others over what they do with
their lives!
To be frank, given the fact that you appear unable to read as much as a
message on a newsgroup, I can't say that I'm going to approach any
'information' from you with any confidence as to its accuracy or provenance.
Yet again, you've given bad information, compounded that by letting people
think it's your own work and then flown into an adolescent rage when found
out and corrected.
Grow up.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote:
Your reading skills are indeed extremely poor.

(snip) ((something you should learn to do btw))

I will grant you this - I have indeed mistaken the two of you. And I
wonder why, or should I? I am indeed very sorry to have touched a nerve
- I haven't recovered on the 'french bitch' you see. But I will very
much like to apologise to you personnally for hurting you. I am sorry
as it is not really in my nature. My nature is indeed very jumpy, very
speed, very bouncy but not as a labrador, rather like a flea, hence the
nickname.

You beleive what you will. I think my concerns over the use of seaweeds
in some parts of the country is something important and my course
doesn't cover opinions, but facts, sadly, but more to the point this
has nothing to do with my course, but my work. As to waste my time, I
think you are now wasting yours. I do not understand the 'work' you are
referring to nor the 'provenance' of my thoughts. Perhaps you and Janet
could enlighten me - you seem to know *so* much indeed. And please stop
holding her hand like this, you're a big girl now.

I would now urge the two of you to be really careful when responding
from now on as I might find some free time to scrutinise all your posts
from 'copyright', 'provenance', 'facts' and 'content'. Lets now see if
your tongue is as long as you made us beleive it is.

I'll skip on the rage - I have some research into different mowers to
do and my frustration is such I think I'll spend the rest of my energy
on this.

On 1/12/05 11:52, in article
, "La puce"
wrote:

snip
I would now urge the two of you to be really careful when responding
from now on as I might find some free time to scrutinise all your posts
from 'copyright', 'provenance', 'facts' and 'content'. Lets now see if
your tongue is as long as you made us beleive it is.

I'll skip on the rage - I have some research into different mowers to
do and my frustration is such I think I'll spend the rest of my energy
on this.


Please don't make threats. Your behaviour has not put you in a position to
monitor that of anyone else.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...
On 1/12/05 11:52, in article
, "La puce"
wrote:

snip
I would now urge the two of you to be really careful when responding
from now on as I might find some free time to scrutinise all your posts
from 'copyright', 'provenance', 'facts' and 'content'. Lets now see if
your tongue is as long as you made us beleive it is.

I'll skip on the rage - I have some research into different mowers to
do and my frustration is such I think I'll spend the rest of my energy
on this.


Please don't make threats. Your behaviour has not put you in a position
to
monitor that of anyone else.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

meow meow meow

Duncan wrote:
"Fucus" sums that up nicely, then!

) Missed this. As a kid I used to love popping the little water
filled pustule with my feet, just like today's plastic 'tension
sheets'. Hmmm... perhaps there's a golden mine there?

On 1/12/05 18:07, in article , "Janet
Baraclough" wrote:

The message k
from Sacha contains these words:

On 1/12/05 11:52, in article
, "La puce"
wrote:

snip
I would now urge the two of you to be really careful when responding
from now on as I might find some free time to scrutinise all your posts
from 'copyright', 'provenance', 'facts' and 'content'.

Please don't make threats.

It's getting to be a habit.Here's google's archive of one of her
earlier threats and fantasies :
snip
Janet will not get
away with it this time as she did in February 2004.


.................................................. ............................
.................................................. ................

Curious. Under her current ID, Puce has no posting history on urg
before October 05. So what on earth does she accuse me of "getting away
with" in February 04 ?

What's all that about, "Puce"? Another example of your bad memory,
dishonesty, delusions and attempts to smear me?

Or did you just forget which socks you have on ?


Oh god, not *another* one. How wearying and how terminally dull.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)