"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"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:

[...about 'pesticide' etc...]

This is a question of usage. Everybody's right, but in different ways.

My own mind clearly distinguishes pests, diseases, and weeds; and I'm
generally very fussy about words. But it seems perfectly reasonable
for the controlling government department to select a term which shall
be deemed to include non-mechanical controls for all three. We laugh
at them when they use great big heavy phrases instead of a simple
familiar word or two.

Weeds _are_ a 'pest' in one recognized sense; and I don't really think
that classifying a herbicide as a 'pesticide' for the purposes of
regulation will cause the unwary to spray the greenfly with
glyphosate. But it does simplify the rules about toxic products, and
that's a good thing.

Mike.

In message , Mike Lyle
writes
Kay wrote in message
...
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
[...]
[Kay:] I'm prepared to accept a need for fertiliser application for food
production. But it's not something I want to do for purely recreational
purposes.
[...]
[Hugh:] The levels of nutrients in our waterways come from agriculture,
precisely the use of fertilisers of which you approve, or at least you
accept.

No - I'm prepared to accept if it is necessary. I've not made my mind
up on that.

Well go away and decide what you mean b4 going into print.

I meant precisely what I said. I'm sorry that I didn't say what you
wanted me to say in order to suit your attack.

No need to apologize: he can manage perfectly well without accurate data.

Mike.
Eh? What inaccuracy have I used?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , Kay
writes
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.

I'm prepared to accept a need for fertiliser application for food
production. But it's not something I want to do for purely recreational
purposes.
What high levels of fertiliser? So far this year, one dose in the spring
of fertiliser/moss killer/weed killer and that's it apart from 1/2 ton
of horticultural sharp sand. Oh yes and one squirt of spot weed killer
to remove a piece of clover which presumably had blown in from someone
else's weed patch.

Well, that's still more than I use ;-)

But hardly "high level", and not affecting the levels of nutrient in our
wild countryside and in our waterways as you alleged, so please withdraw
you comment.

Of course it affects it. 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. I did not in my original post comment
on your personal use of fertilisers.

The levels of nutrients in our waterways come from agriculture,
precisely the use of fertilisers of which you approve, or at least you
accept.

No - I'm prepared to accept if it is necessary. I've not made my mind
up on that.
Well go away and decide what you mean b4 going into print.

I meant precisely what I said. I'm sorry that I didn't say what you
wanted me to say in order to suit your attack.

Trouble is what you said wasn't very precise.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"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.

"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 :-)

"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

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

In article , Howard
Neil writes

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.

That is not correct. A better generic term for garden poisons is
horticultural chemicals, which also includes chemical fertilisers like
Growmore etc. My hoe is a weed killer, but because it is not a herbicide
it leaves plant herbage suitable to be re-used for composting, mulching
etc. That is the organic approach to plant control.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

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

--
Howard Neil

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.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

Sacha wrote:

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.

Rudeness? By pointing out your ignorance? You can make up your own
definitions as long as you like. The rest of the industry will continue
to use the accepted definitions. Confusing new gardeners with your own
invented definitions is the best way of ensuring that they will make a
poor choice. If you really are using pesticides as part of your trade, I
suggest that you enquire at your local agricultural college about their
pesticides courses.

--
Howard Neil

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 ...


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

In article , Douglas
writes
Sack immediately all the green-keepers of the Ancient Scottish golf courses
plus those 'wilderness' putting greens in
Georgia U.S,of A. Also the groundsmen who dug the hole at the penalty spot
and put our national Team out of the competition. (Don't blame that bloke
with the hideous tattoo across his neck , - he wuz robbed!)
They've All got it all wrong! (:^)

Perhaps they should have tried 4-leaved clover?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

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.

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"