What are your views on 'Green' issues, and how do you see yourself as a person...
One lucky person will win a free subscription to KG! (or, I guess, an extension of your exsisting sub...)
Good luck
I want to know what you think...
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
-
Mr Potato Head
It's that time of year again, and we're testing the choppy waters of our readership. This time, we would like to get a little deeper...
What are your views on 'Green' issues, and how do you see yourself as a person...
One lucky person will win a free subscription to KG! (or, I guess, an extension of your exsisting sub...)
Good luck
What are your views on 'Green' issues, and how do you see yourself as a person...
One lucky person will win a free subscription to KG! (or, I guess, an extension of your exsisting sub...)
Good luck
-
peter
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5879
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:54 pm
- Location: Near Stansted airport
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
- Contact:
Food miles, as few as possible.
Herbicides, as little as possible.
Pesticides, as little as possible.
Fungicides, as little as possible.
Antibiotics in livestock, as little as possible and never as a preventative or food additive.
Prairie fields, get shot of them
Locally grown, preferably home grown, as much as possible.
Local abbatoirs, so the animals we eat travel as little as possible alive.
Use every bit of what we grow or raise, without "strange" practices, adding mutton waste to cattle feed for example.
Organic without the pseudery, all for it, but somethimes you have to deal with a pest/disease problem or go broke.
Seasonality, as much as possible.
Tesco-poly, do away with it.
Traditional coutryside, with a mix of uses,containing woodland, headrows, hedgerows, ditches, ponds, floodplains that all allow precious rain to soak in.
Variety of species used, we are too dependent on a narrow gene pool, I did not realise that ALL commercial bannanas are genetically identical as well as sterile.
Myself, mostly green, with some yellow blotches of pragmatism and laziness.
Herbicides, as little as possible.
Pesticides, as little as possible.
Fungicides, as little as possible.
Antibiotics in livestock, as little as possible and never as a preventative or food additive.
Prairie fields, get shot of them
Locally grown, preferably home grown, as much as possible.
Local abbatoirs, so the animals we eat travel as little as possible alive.
Use every bit of what we grow or raise, without "strange" practices, adding mutton waste to cattle feed for example.
Organic without the pseudery, all for it, but somethimes you have to deal with a pest/disease problem or go broke.
Seasonality, as much as possible.
Tesco-poly, do away with it.
Traditional coutryside, with a mix of uses,containing woodland, headrows, hedgerows, ditches, ponds, floodplains that all allow precious rain to soak in.
Variety of species used, we are too dependent on a narrow gene pool, I did not realise that ALL commercial bannanas are genetically identical as well as sterile.
Myself, mostly green, with some yellow blotches of pragmatism and laziness.
Do not put off thanking people when they have helped you, as they may not be there to thank later.
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
How do you expect us to respond, is there a questionnaire somewhere or are we expected to send an individual response on this topic, surely not with the number of forum members that we have.
The trouble with ticking little boxes is that they never allow for any response other than those which the author has already thought up.
I am still waiting for the KGM to acknowledge the possibility of any readers growing edibles other than strictly for their own consumption, What about the inevitable surpluses, Farmers Markets etc. box schemes (if any survive, all that I heard of locally have collapsed).We continue to support local retailers.
Allan
The trouble with ticking little boxes is that they never allow for any response other than those which the author has already thought up.
I am still waiting for the KGM to acknowledge the possibility of any readers growing edibles other than strictly for their own consumption, What about the inevitable surpluses, Farmers Markets etc. box schemes (if any survive, all that I heard of locally have collapsed).We continue to support local retailers.
Allan
Click on 'your views' Allan and you will find a questionnaire but you are right it is difficult to put your exact view.For instance the use of the word 'sustainability' which for me is a government phrase which is trotted out as a 'means nothing but sounds good'phrase seeking to maintain the status quo which is not what the planet needs.
-
Mr Potato Head
Sorry, I realise my post wasn't very clear 
Yes Allan, there's a questionaire if you click here
I would agree that they're flawed, but we do also take more soft-edged evidence into account as well, such as peoples' comments on the forum.. (Believe it or not!)
Yes Allan, there's a questionaire if you click here
I would agree that they're flawed, but we do also take more soft-edged evidence into account as well, such as peoples' comments on the forum.. (Believe it or not!)
Mr PH, it won't permit one to not answer some questions, so I have just spent however long doing it in vain 
This is appalling practise, you (in the third person sense, not you personally
)will rarely manage to phrase all the answers so that they meet everyones responses and there will always be some questions that are just irrelevant to some respondants. So respondants should be allowed to omit questions OR you should at least warn us at the beginning that we have to answer all of the qestions so (in my case ) we can just not do the questionnaire.
If this is altered I might be prepared to try again, otherwise you are not getting my input.
This is appalling practise, you (in the third person sense, not you personally
)will rarely manage to phrase all the answers so that they meet everyones responses and there will always be some questions that are just irrelevant to some respondants. So respondants should be allowed to omit questions OR you should at least warn us at the beginning that we have to answer all of the qestions so (in my case ) we can just not do the questionnaire.
If this is altered I might be prepared to try again, otherwise you are not getting my input.
-
peter
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5879
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:54 pm
- Location: Near Stansted airport
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
- Contact:
having now followd the link.
I object to the "either or" nature of question 24.
Do not put off thanking people when they have helped you, as they may not be there to thank later.
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
Hi Mr PH,
I am afraid I do not append my name, address, phone number or Email address to any questionaire.
I have a strange feeling that these questions are not set by the magazine but more like FOE or SA as I suspect I have come across very similar questionaires from both of these so called 'world Savers' in the past.
If this is the case I feel that you should honest and tell us.
I am afraid I do not append my name, address, phone number or Email address to any questionaire.
I have a strange feeling that these questions are not set by the magazine but more like FOE or SA as I suspect I have come across very similar questionaires from both of these so called 'world Savers' in the past.
If this is the case I feel that you should honest and tell us.
JB.
Sorry, I won't be answering this questionnaire as it is too like the false arguments about organic or not,(i.e.SA and all those fellow-travellers) and it won't help shape the magazine in the interests of its readers.
Allan
Allan
-
Mr Potato Head
Well, I'm pretty confident that you won't believe me, but the questionnaire is set by KG.
The reason for the name and address is so that if you are our lucky winner, you'll get your free subscription. Having said that, I'll try to set it so that the name & address fields can be left blank.
Sorry about q.24, peter, I agree with you, but I didn't set the questions...
I am intrigued though... what's a false argument, Allan?
The reason for the name and address is so that if you are our lucky winner, you'll get your free subscription. Having said that, I'll try to set it so that the name & address fields can be left blank.
Sorry about q.24, peter, I agree with you, but I didn't set the questions...
I am intrigued though... what's a false argument, Allan?
-
Mr Potato Head
Right then, for all those that may wish to remain anonymous, you are no longer required to submit your personal details. 
Just to reassure you, the motivations behind the questionnaire are entirely of Mortons own creation, and nothing to do with any outside agencies. Though I think it's fair to say that FOE & the SA are not the only people interested in 'Green' issues...
Sorry if my previous post sounded a bit officious, it wasn't intended that way...
Just to reassure you, the motivations behind the questionnaire are entirely of Mortons own creation, and nothing to do with any outside agencies. Though I think it's fair to say that FOE & the SA are not the only people interested in 'Green' issues...
Sorry if my previous post sounded a bit officious, it wasn't intended that way...
A false argument is an argument or series of steps (not head-bashing) based on a series of false (not proven)statements, these generally picked to support the claim. The most important in this discussion being that anything not strictly to SA rules is "chemical" and therefore poisonous.
The most blatant that I have come across is that Organics is not a religion, any proper scientist will tell you that it most certainly is not a science, science is impartial and nothing is beyond challenge whereas Organics you either swallow the whole lot or you are out.
Allan
The most blatant that I have come across is that Organics is not a religion, any proper scientist will tell you that it most certainly is not a science, science is impartial and nothing is beyond challenge whereas Organics you either swallow the whole lot or you are out.
Allan
-
Mr Potato Head
Hmm, I know we've been having this discussion elsewhere, Allan, but I don't think anyone is saying that Organics is a science or a religion, but merely a set of specific criteria that have to be adhered to, enforceable by law, in order to refer to yourself as 'organic'.
Having said that though, it does make the question in the survey a lot more loaded than it's intended to be! Let's assume that it means organic as a way-of-life rather than Organic(TM)
I think it's arguable that 'organic' as a broad concept has arisen precisely because of the inability of science to prove that the use of chemicals is safe, rather than than the other way around - and let us not forget that one of the key criteria for organic is to avoid scientifically proven problems of feeding animals other animal by-products. BSE anyone?
Even beyond the organic debate, I think we're too often asked to swallow things without scientific veracity, and expected to prove that they are bad ideas rather than checking to see if they're good ideas in the first place... (I especially like the toothpaste at the moment that advertises itself as containing 'liquid calcium'... I'm sure that's a good idea )
As I'd like to draw this to a conclusion, I thought I'd post something for Allan. Have you read Ben Goldacres 'Bad Science' website? It's witty and full of excellent links to the kind of unscientific tosh that both of us enjoy seeing destroyed! (And it has a forum... tee hee)
http://www.badscience.net/
Having said that though, it does make the question in the survey a lot more loaded than it's intended to be! Let's assume that it means organic as a way-of-life rather than Organic(TM)
I think it's arguable that 'organic' as a broad concept has arisen precisely because of the inability of science to prove that the use of chemicals is safe, rather than than the other way around - and let us not forget that one of the key criteria for organic is to avoid scientifically proven problems of feeding animals other animal by-products. BSE anyone?
Even beyond the organic debate, I think we're too often asked to swallow things without scientific veracity, and expected to prove that they are bad ideas rather than checking to see if they're good ideas in the first place... (I especially like the toothpaste at the moment that advertises itself as containing 'liquid calcium'... I'm sure that's a good idea
)
As I'd like to draw this to a conclusion, I thought I'd post something for Allan. Have you read Ben Goldacres 'Bad Science' website? It's witty and full of excellent links to the kind of unscientific tosh that both of us enjoy seeing destroyed! (And it has a forum... tee hee
)
http://www.badscience.net/