say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

Your description fitted most green house crops GM or no GM.

I'm glad you said 'most'. On my smallholding I used to grow Ailsa Craig,
Shirley and Alicante in a big greenhouse and sell them at the gate.

Soil in the greenhouse was prepared in the autumn with rabbit and goat
manure and vegetable compost, and the tomatoes grown on it were
snapped-up by those who got to know about them, because they had applied
no artificial sprays or fertilisers, but more than that, they had superb
flavour.

Likewise my soft fruit went like wildfire for the same reasons.

I meant the stuff imported from the Netherlands and on sale in most UK
supermarkets.

You didn't make that very clear......

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
 

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Five Cats" wrote in message
...
In article , Michael Saunby
writes

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

snip

Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part
of
the
body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for
society.
Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their
importance.


Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published
in
a
'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend
on
producing a flow of such published articles.


Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend
on
many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also
the
trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer
reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a
measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the
case,
peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as
far
as technology is concerned.

Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the
methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an
article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of
dodgy tosh.


Or perhaps that some score settling is being done.

Not in my field

Franz

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
 

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Five Cats" wrote in message
...
In article , Michael Saunby
writes

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

snip

Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part
of
the
body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for
society.
Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their
importance.


Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published
in
a
'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend
on
producing a flow of such published articles.


Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend
on
many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also
the
trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer
reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a
measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the
case,
peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as
far
as technology is concerned.

Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the
methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an
article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of
dodgy tosh.


Or perhaps that some score settling is being done.

Not in my field

Franz

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
 

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Five Cats" wrote in message
...
In article , Michael Saunby
writes

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

snip

Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part
of
the
body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for
society.
Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their
importance.


Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published
in
a
'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend
on
producing a flow of such published articles.


Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend
on
many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also
the
trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer
reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a
measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the
case,
peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as
far
as technology is concerned.

Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the
methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an
article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of
dodgy tosh.


Or perhaps that some score settling is being done.

Not in my field

Franz

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
 

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Five Cats" wrote in message
...
In article , Michael Saunby
writes

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

snip

Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part
of
the
body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for
society.
Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their
importance.


Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published
in
a
'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend
on
producing a flow of such published articles.


Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend
on
many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also
the
trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer
reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a
measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the
case,
peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as
far
as technology is concerned.

Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the
methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an
article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of
dodgy tosh.


Or perhaps that some score settling is being done.

Not in my field

Franz

say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London
 

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:39:28 +0100, Jaques d'Altrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

Your description fitted most green house crops GM or no GM.

I'm glad you said 'most'. On my smallholding I used to grow Ailsa Craig,
Shirley and Alicante in a big greenhouse and sell them at the gate.

Soil in the greenhouse was prepared in the autumn with rabbit and goat
manure and vegetable compost, and the tomatoes grown on it were
snapped-up by those who got to know about them, because they had applied
no artificial sprays or fertilisers, but more than that, they had superb
flavour.

Likewise my soft fruit went like wildfire for the same reasons.

I meant the stuff imported from the Netherlands and on sale in most UK
supermarkets.

You didn't make that very clear......

I have now ..........
--
Martin