Bry, Perhaps you should do your own research before debunking that of others.
formatting link
(
formatting link
(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.
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:
formatting link
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
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------ posted via
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
formatting link
) 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.
Bill - please send me private email so that I have your email address. I have some information you may find very interesting.
Send to: snipped-for-privacy@meadows.pair.com
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
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.
- 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."
formatting link
Also the USA Copyright Office - very clear explanations of the USA's copyright laws.
formatting link
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.
-- 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
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:
snipped-for-privacy@ripe.net and snipped-for-privacy@ripe.net
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 here:
formatting link
(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.
-- 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
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*,
formatting link
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
-- Bry
------------------------------------------------------------------------ posted via
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).
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.
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
-- 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
-- Bry
------------------------------------------------------------------------ posted via
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,
?????? 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 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.
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
-- Bry
------------------------------------------------------------------------ posted via
I think you are mistaken. Using this theory.... say you have written a book and it's been published.
John Doe then Xeroxes it and sell the copies for $50 each. They are correctly attributed to you (because he copied the entire book, including the title page with the author's name, etc.).
This is a violation of your copyright. And illegal. And so it should be because instead of you (the author) profiting from the sale of your works, John Doe is profiting.
However, you are free to read the sources I gave yesterday and form your own interpretations of them, of course. For your convenience, I will repeat them here:
US Copyright Office -
formatting link
Copyright Site (written by a copyright lawyer) -
formatting link
I don't really care all that much, this is the final straw that broke the camel's back (concerning newsgroups) as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to participate in newsgroups any longer, I give up.
I've fought the trolls and spammers for years, I've filtered out hundreds (if not thousands) of idiots, I've made a worthwhile contribution (I hope) to the general welfare of the Usenet community: but I'll tell you what: The noise/signal ratio is just too great for me now. I give up on newsgroups. This was one of the few remaining worthwhile newsgroups, IMHO.
I'm on several very good mailing lists and although I vastly prefer the newsgroup *format*, it's sadly necessary to have the control a mailing list affords.
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
It may have been, but not to gardenbanter.co.uk and - even if it had been - NO ONE has authority to do this. That is
*not* how unmoderated Usenet newsgroups operate.
In other words, I could create such a 'gateway' and take all the posts from this newsgroup and publish them on my website (for commercial purposes): but it would be unethical and a violation of copyright. Or you could. Or anyone could.
There's nothing to prevent this from being done. It would still be unethical and a violation of copyright.
If you are in a friend's house, perhaps minding the goldfish while your friend is away on vacation, and see lots of money lying about, there's nothing to prevent you from taking it. The fact that there's nothing to prevent you from taking it does not make it right.
I was under the impression that Bry was the domain owner of gardenbanter.co.uk -- his own posts gave me that impression. He now says that he is not. If this is true, I was mistaken. And I hereby apologize to Bry.
Anyway: I'm gone, unsubbing.
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
I was here, too, when rec.gardens.edible was split off from rec.gardens. Being around when a newsgroup is created is not really a sign of any authority at all - even if you voted for said newsgroup, which I did.
Ah. So, Pat, what are you going to do about groups.google.com? Because usenet-to-email, usenet-to-html, usenet-to-whatever gateways been around in one form or another for ages (probably since usenet began), and will stay around as long as usenet continues to functions.
I see gardenbanter as just yet another take on that gateway, for those who don't have usenet access; this one is set up in the spirit of the times, like most any php-mysql forum (bb? bb2? they all look the same to me.).
Is this better than googlegroups? Dunno. Is it better than a proper usenet program? Certainly not.
Well, there you fall down. First, you're assuming that it's money is being made, that's not seen, and that would be the first exception. Second, entire letters to the editor can be posted in other newspapers without payment, as long as they are properly attributed.
As to your sources, you need to understand that the sources aren't as important as you think. What are important things are the precedents that have been accepted by the courts, all of which interpret the law. Fair use applies in this situation.
Finally, understand that the copyright laws are still in the process of catching up to the digital media. At this point, with all due respect, you have no case.
If you really decided to unsubscribe you won't see this I suppose. Anyone can archive posts to usenet and make those archives available to the public. They can even charge people for access. This breaks no US copyright rules. Simply ticking off the yes no archive button does not offer any legal protection. You certainly do own the copyright of any material you write and claim. That offers you protection against infringements, but an archive of public posts is not an infringement.
I'm still picking tomatos in zone 6 - Now that's worth discussing!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.