"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"BAC" wrote in message
t...
"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
In article , hugh
] writes

OK, the OP doesn't want a wildflower meadow. But the more we
encourage
a
style of gardening dependent on high levels of fertiliser, the
more we
contribute to high levels of nutrient in our wild countryside and
in
our
waterways, which is damaging the diversity of our countryside.

snip

Gardens and countryside are intermixed,
waterways go through both. Your personal use of fertiliser may not
have
much effect, but I was talking about an overall philosophy of
gardening
which regards regular fertiliser, pesticide and weedkiller use as a
necessity. If you read what I said, I was suggesting that a dislike of
this approach might be why people were suggesting that a pure grass
lawn
was not necessarily to be desired.

If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not
to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the diversity
of
the countryside?

Kay has spoken sensibly for herself; but it's my philosophy, too.
Isn't it impressive how far some athletic readers can jump from
'...suggesting...might be...suggesting that a pure xxx was not
necessarily to be desired'? Your middle name must be Tarzan!

Sorry, no end of careful reading allows me to make sense of that paragraph,
and I have already been told off today for trying to read between the lines.
Besides, if you have been reading the thread throughout, it should be
obvious what I was driving at.


Of _course_ I wouldn't plant alien species which I knew were likely to
establish themselves in numbers in the wild, or interbreed with native
species: I hope you aren't suggesting that _you would_.

I have made no suggestions about my actions. I was trying to ascertain
whether Kay's views about the close relationship between gardens and the
environment and her expressed concern about the possible effects of
gardening on the environment led her to limit species in her garden to
native plants alone, and presumably, to advise others not to plant non
native species, too.


But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising.

Why should it worry you that I put quotation marks round 'damaging'? One
person's 'damage' can be another person's 'improvement' or a third person's
'modification'. Further, damage may be significant, or insignificant. It's a
very subjective term. I put quotes round 'damaging' to denote I was
'borrrowing' it from Kay, for the purposes of the discussion. Nothing
sinister in that, I hope.

And I don't quite know
what to expect from one who's prepared to drop that unexplained
'including most clovers' into the discussion, so I'm on my guard for
sophistry!


Unexplained? The original subject of this thread was 'clover in lawn'. As
for Sophism, any fallacies detected will have been used unintentionally. And
one can't be an accidental Sophist, surely?

BAC wrote:

Sorry about that - I use the term 'pesticides' to include herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, etc. I don't think I'm alone in that, but
apologise for any confusion. In this context, I meant weedkiller,
specifically one not fatal to lawn grass.

You are correct in your use of the term "pesticide". It is a general
term that includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Weed killer
is a herbicide which then means that it is a pesticide.

--
Howard Neil

On 18/7/04 8:44 pm, in article
, "Howard Neil"
wrote:

BAC wrote:

Sorry about that - I use the term 'pesticides' to include herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, etc. I don't think I'm alone in that, but
apologise for any confusion. In this context, I meant weedkiller,
specifically one not fatal to lawn grass.

You are correct in your use of the term "pesticide". It is a general
term that includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Weed killer
is a herbicide which then means that it is a pesticide.

You may use it in that way but nobody else I know does so. Herbicide is not
pesticide. We do not use pesticides on this nursery but very occasionally
we use herbicides. As we use biological controls in the greenhouses, the
difference is very marked and it would be sloppy to encourage people to use
'pesticides' when one might mean 'herbicides', IMO.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"BAC" wrote in message
...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
snip

OK, I'll stop trying to read between the lines, too. Kay was
expressing a cautious view, and I took your response as pretending
her view was an extreme one. This manoeuvre is not unknown on Usenet.

I thought you suspected me of employing 'Tu Quoque', the well known
sub-fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi which can be used to justify almost
anything. Not intentionally.


Of _course_ I wouldn't plant alien species which I knew were likely to
establish themselves in numbers in the wild, or interbreed with native
species: I hope you aren't suggesting that _you would_.

I have made no suggestions about my actions. I was trying to ascertain
whether Kay's views about the close relationship between gardens and the
environment and her expressed concern about the possible effects of
gardening on the environment led her to limit species in her garden to
native plants alone, and presumably, to advise others not to plant non
native species, too.

The tone suggested to me -- reading fatally between the lines -- that
you might think normal caution about invasive foreign plants was as
unreasonable as a total objection to chemicals. I made the error of
taking a straight question to be a rhetorical one. But the context of
my error was that somebody appeared to be objecting to Kay's entirely
conventional and uncontroversial cautionary attitude to chemical use
in the garden; such a context would have made the error a reasonable
one.

Indeed. I think that the original objection was to what the objector clearly
perceived as 'preaching', as opposed to the advice requested.



But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising.

Why should it worry you that I put quotation marks round 'damaging'? One
person's 'damage' can be another person's 'improvement' or a third
person's
'modification'. Further, damage may be significant, or insignificant.
It's a
very subjective term. I put quotes round 'damaging' to denote I was
'borrrowing' it from Kay, for the purposes of the discussion. Nothing
sinister in that, I hope.

No, not necessarily sinister. But you didn't put quotes round other
words you used which Kay had also used. It was, therefore, reasonable
to assume that you were making an intentional distinction between
'damaging' and other words by using 'scare quotes'. This assumption is
now reinforced by your mentioning that you were 'borrowing it...for
the purposes of discussion'.

And actually, 'damage' isn't a subjective term in this context (though
some people will use it subjectively).

It may be splitting hairs, but I disagree - 'damage' *is* a subjective term
in this context. Most definitions of damage centre around harm to the value
or utility of whatever is damaged, or loss of something preferred.
Obviously, all judgement calls. For example, I might think that felling a
mature Turkey Oak because it is non-native is 'damage', because I think it
is a magnificent specimen, whereas others might think it isn't damage,
because it clears the way for a 'native' replacement they consider
preferable, on biodiversity grounds. Either opinion is 'right' depending on
one's POV. Similarly, many people like the current heather clad appearance
of the 'deer forest', which is maintained by a high level of grazing,
whereas other people consider it to be badly damaged.

It's often quite easy to
estimate, even to measure, the ecological impact of an environmental
change, including species-invasion. For a crude example, we have
Rhodo. ponticum in Snowdonia. (I wish I could remember the fascinating
case of strains of primrose on a Scottish island for a subtle example:
something to do with a fortnight's difference in flowering time and
its effect on invertebrate reproduction. I'm sure you know plenty of
examples, though.)

Yes, it can be straightforward to record changes, however, the question of
whether or not the changes constitute 'damage' is a matter of opinion which
depends on what the person or organisation concerned considers to be the
preferred state. Claiming that a change constitutes 'damage' because quite a
few people think it does could be another of those fallacies (band-wagon)
you warned about :-)

snip

I'm sorry this is so long; and I'm sorry if I've misread the white
strips on the screen. snip

No need to apologise, on either count. It's refreshing to discuss something
with someone who does not resort to abuse :-)

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


LOL. I hope what I wrote served its purpose.

Which was?

To teach me something I didn't know? - No
To make me reconsider my values? - Do you *really* think that I leap on
to passing bandwagons without giving some consideration to my stance?
To tell me my opinions are unwelcome in urg? - well, you are just one
urgler, and you are entitled to state your views
To say that no-one should comment on one undesirable practice unless
they make sure their life is clear of all others? - it's a philosophy,
but I can't see that bodes well for the future of the world.
To take a cheap side swipe at me? - well, that's not something I would
have associated with you ...



None of the above. The purpose was twofold. First, to elicit responses
leading to a better understanding of what you and others of similar opinion
were driving at (and why), and secondly to suggest why it is not perhaps
surprising if such advice fosters resentment in some quarters. I'm sorry if
you were stung by my remarks, that was not my intention.

In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you have
a read of:-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you have
a read of:-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.

But it was by the OP, who wanted rid of it?

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 19/7/04 9:37, in article
, "Howard Neil"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:

On 18/7/04 8:44 pm, in article
, "Howard
Neil"
wrote:


BAC wrote:


Sorry about that - I use the term 'pesticides' to include
herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, etc. I don't think I'm alone in that,
but
apologise for any confusion. In this context, I meant
weedkiller,
specifically one not fatal to lawn grass.

You are correct in your use of the term "pesticide". It is a
general
term that includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Weed
killer
is a herbicide which then means that it is a pesticide.


You may use it in that way but nobody else I know does so.
Herbicide is not
pesticide. We do not use pesticides on this nursery but very
occasionally
we use herbicides. As we use biological controls in the
greenhouses, the
difference is very marked and it would be sloppy to encourage
people to use
'pesticides' when one might mean 'herbicides', IMO.

If you have a nursery, I am very surprised at your lack of
knowledge.
Have a look at the definition of herbicide given he-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744

And I am not at all surprised at your rudeness - unfortunately.
Pesticides
kill pests, herbicides kill vegetation. It doesn't take some
government
mandarin who wouldn't recognise a pair of wellingtons if they bit
him, to
tell anyone that.
Tell a new gardener that a herbicide is a pesticide and he will make
a very
poor choice when shopping for his requirements.

No. You are unfortunately quite wrong. It is not your prerogative to
redefine technical terms which have a prior definition.
I have now found 9 separate references, originating in the UK and in
the USA, including Encyclopedia
Brittanica and Wikipedia in which herbicides are defined as
pesticides, and none, except you, which claim the opposite.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you
have
a read of:-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for
controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active
substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in
many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover
is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.

Organic gardening is not the be-all and end-all of gardening, and
clover is not the only plant which is a pest under certain
circumstances. Alchemilla mollis is a pest in my garden, as is moss.
There are gardens in which Japanese Knotweed is a pest.
Please read my other posts on the definition of the term "pesticide".

Franz

On 19/7/04 20:21, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:


"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you have
a read of:-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.

But it was by the OP, who wanted rid of it?

And needed a HERBicide. ;-))



--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

Sacha wrote:
On 19/7/04 20:21, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:


"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Howard Neil writes

Before you start making up your own definitions, I suggest that you have
a read of:-

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/appendices.asp?id=744


Which gives:
-----------
Pesticide
Any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for controlling
any pest. A pesticide product consists of one or more active substances
co-formulated with other materials. Formulated pesticides exist in many
forms, such as solid granules, powders or liquids.
-----------

That Govt. definition is not relevant to this thread because clover is
not considered to be a pest in organic gardening.

But it was by the OP, who wanted rid of it?


And needed a HERBicide. ;-))

Which is, in turn, a pesticide.

I quote from the Pesticides Safety Directorate's glossary (url as above):-

Herbicide
A pesticide used to control unwanted vegetation (weed killer).



--
Howard Neil

On 19/7/04 21:57, in article
, "Howard Neil"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:
snip
And needed a HERBicide. ;-))

Which is, in turn, a pesticide.

I quote from the Pesticides Safety Directorate's glossary
snip


I was sure that you would. The government obliteration of 'common sense'
has readily seized upon your life, it seems.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

In article , BAC
writes

None of the above. The purpose was twofold. First, to elicit responses
leading to a better understanding of what you and others of similar opinion
were driving at (and why), and secondly to suggest why it is not perhaps
surprising if such advice fosters resentment in some quarters. I'm sorry if
you were stung by my remarks, that was not my intention.


Fair enough. It'll teach me to keep my nose out of other people's
arguments ;-)

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Sacha wrote:

On 19/7/04 21:57, in article
, "Howard Neil"
wrote:


Sacha wrote:

snip

And needed a HERBicide. ;-))

Which is, in turn, a pesticide.

I quote from the Pesticides Safety Directorate's glossary

snip


I was sure that you would. The government obliteration of 'common sense'
has readily seized upon your life, it seems.


You seem to be a bit of a control freak. You have invented your own
definitions and woe betide anyone who disagrees with you. For your
information, the definition of "pesticide" that I gave you is in use
around the world. It is not the invention of "the government". There is
no "common sense" in having your own definitions. In fact, when it comes
to pesticides, that can be downright dangerous.

--
Howard Neil

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

No. You are unfortunately quite wrong. It is not your prerogative to
redefine technical terms which have a prior definition.
I have now found 9 separate references, originating in the UK and in
the USA, including Encyclopedia
Brittanica and Wikipedia in which herbicides are defined as
pesticides, and none, except you, which claim the opposite.

Wrong again Franz. I agree with and support Sacha in this matter.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.