Alan Titchmarsh on peat use

[alan refail]

As a relative newcomer to this forum; I have to say I find it amazing that so much effort seems to be being put into trying to demolish the anti-peat arguments; looking to gain-points on every figure or 'fact' that cannot be substantiated by 'authority'.

Sorry, JohnT, that's just scientific rigour. At the risk of offending you, I would suggest that what you are attempting is evangelism.

Is there not more to be gained by detailed discussion of the practical alternatives, problems, etc?

I thought that that was what I was trying to do for myself by trialling peat against New Horizon, which Colin Miles referred to.

Is this thread STILL running ? What a bore !

This heartfelt opinion might suggest that the anti-peat campaign is not scoring a resounding victory. As might the fact that the majority of the forum's regular contributors have not entered into the debate, presumably preferring to carry on growing.

I would, respectfully, suggest that you would gain more credibility were you to offer advice from your own organic (peat-free) experience when members ask questions. I note that you have never done so. That is, as I understand it, what this forum exists for.

[JohnT]

Wow! I wondered how long it would be, before this discussion descended to the 'personal' levels, I have seen on other threads here. Clearly, not very long! However, with that now being so; I apologise to other participants, for taking a few lines by way of 'right to reply' to Alan.

Offended by your reference to evangelism? Why should I be? If one takes away the religious connotations and perhaps relies on a strict definition of "active and ardent in one's advocacy of some principal or cause"; then, most definitely I am - and proud of it!

Regarding your peat-free trial; coincidentally, I had just been reading your posts on that - I assume - at the same time as you were writing. I wish you every success and look forward to the results. My comments were however not aimed at you specifically; they were intended to reinforce my view that - as a whole - there is more to be gained by accepting inevitable change and adapting, rather than trying to hold-back the tide. In that same vein; there is perhaps little point in another set of tests to establish whether peat-free performs better or worse than peat - no more than testing whether leaded petrol is 'better' than lead-free. Change is coming - any comparison should be between what will be available; not what will not.

Not knowing 'freddy'; I have no idea of his reasons for his saying what he did. I saw the post at the time, and wondered:

a. is he bored with the arguments for?

b. is he bored with the arguments against?

c: with a web forum that is so diverse and active; why do people choose to read (and more so, comment on) sections of it, that clearly bore them?

In the light of c.; I felt it not worth commenting on.

As to why other contributors do not enter into the debate - neither of us can know that, until they do and choose to say so. For someone who is usually so insistent on facts; you seem to put much reliance on your own opinions for why someone might choose not to participate. It is just as likely that some might feel unwilling to express their views, for fear of being 'shot down', should they try to put an unsubstantiated argument, or misquote a figure. Who can say? Certainly, neither you or I!

As to credibility; I thank you for your advice regarding same; but I seek none. I've set-out my thoughts on this topic elsewhere. You can either agree with me, or not. I am not a politician, or any kind of activist. I have no vested interest, other than wanting to see a better world for those that come after us; not a worse one. I wouldn't even call myself much of a gardener; and as to answering peat-free questions on this forum - no; of course I haven't. Please remember; I am only on this forum now because I noticed a link (that I believe you posted) to another forum with which I am concerned, and followed it back here. I have an interest in this topic specifically; and have no desire in getting involved with the wider KG forum - I have far too many other commitments anyway.

I unfortunately did not realise, as you apparently understand it, that this forum exists only for the asking and answering of gardening questions. I clearly missed the point; as do, no doubt, those presently contributing to the 'Apocalypse now! ...or tomorrow', 'Please can we have some more 'funnies'? and many similar threads!

Of course; worst of all, having to respond to a post such as that under reply, totally derails the conversation thread; moves the focus from where it should be - the horticultural peat issue - and adds to the boredom of those such as 'freddy'. I can therefore only apologise for my part in so doing - but unfortunately, there seemed to be no alternative.

[alan refail]

An interesting read from the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/ga ... -peat.html

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
A very contrived article which says actually nothing. Totally full of DEFRA assumptions!
As for Monty Don making compost. That man is an absolute fraud and the only way he ever gets dirty hands is courtesy of BBC make-up department.
JB.

[JohnT]

...That man is an absolute fraud and the only way he ever gets dirty hands is courtesy of BBC make-up department.
JB.

An interesting viewpoint Johnboy. Would you care to elaborate?

[Johnboy]

John T,
I have no intentions of elaborating on what I have written. I thought perhaps you might be able to work that one out for yourself.
JB.

[JohnT]

John T,
I have no intentions of elasborating what I have written. I thought perhaps you might be able to work that one out for yourself.
JB.

Thank you JohnBoy; your response tells me everything I need to know.

John

[alan refail]

I notice the comments on the article do not offer whole-hearted support to Mark Diacono.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/ga ... -peat.html

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
I reproduce this from the comments re Telegraph article as an example of the dishonesty of the anti peat movement.
JB.

OH, Mark Diacono, where do you get your figures from?

The extensive mosslands of my native West Lancashire plain, from Chat Moss to the Ribble estuary were mostly drained and put to agricultural use centuries ago, as were other large tracts of peat bog such as the Somerset Levels and large parts of eastern England.
You use as support for your argument a statement such as: "Having developed over thousands of years where acidic or anaerobic conditions prevent plants and fungi from decaying completely, all but six per cent of our lowland peat has been removed in just a few short decades", suggesting that the evil gardeners of the seventies until today have destroyed over ninety percent of peat bogs - clearly a nonsense. This suggests that either you are totally ignorant of two thousand years and more of history, or, more worryingly, that you are prepared to put a dishonest spin on the six percent figure to support what has become an anti-peat crusade which usually has little concern for facts, honesty or truth.

[JohnT]

Hi Alan,
I reproduce this from the comments re Telegraph article as an example of the dishonesty of the anti peat movement.

Interesting quote; though I imagine that in other circumstances, you would be demanding chapter and verse as to proof of the assertions made by the comment poster ' - 'jimtate'? (Who somewhat coincidentally, seems to share my surname!)

Even more interesting (at least, to me) is that 'jimtate's Daily Telegraph profile shows him using exactly the same bucolic avatar as that previously used on Facebook and 'geograph', by one of the main contributors on this subject, on this forum. Maybe just another coincidence?

"...dishonesty of the anti-peat movement..."???

[Johnboy]

John T,
Well I do not know anything about this but it appears that when something occurs like this it doesn't take you long to start squealing!
You know as well as I do that the case put by the anti-peat campaigners is an absolute load of rubbish.

This is a DEFRA quote.
Replacing Peat could cost £522M while the move would bring £333M of environmental benefits.

This seems to be on par with 'Organic Mathematics.' Organic sums never seem to add up the right way!
I do hope that DEFRA comes to each and every one of you anti peat campaigners for a hefty contribution to make up the balance.
JB.

[JohnT]

John T,
...it appears that when something occurs like this it doesn't take you long to start squealing!

Nor indeed long for you to start being downright rude again!

You know as well as I do that the case put by the anti-peat campaigners is an absolute load of rubbish.

Here you go again - telling me what I know - when you have no idea whatsoever and are totally wrong!

This is a DEFRA quote.
Replacing Peat could cost £522M while the move would bring £333M of environmental benefits.

Interesting figures. Please would you provide the source; so that I might read more.

Well I do not know anything about this...

To assist with an explanation...

My point being that, all the evidence suggests that 'jimtate', the person who penned the attack on Mark Diacono on the 14th June; is the same person who described that same article as "...an excellent article which I have saved for regular use" on another forum, the previous day; and as I said, is a significant contributor to this forum and defender of peat.

This, I highlighed, purely in response to your "an example of the dishonesty of the anti peat movement" comment, in your earlier post.

[Johnboy]

John T,
I you are in any way trying to accuse me of conspiracy I must warn you that you are on exceedingly thin ice!
I do not consider that anything in my last posting is in the slightest way rude.
It seems that to play the outraged virgin is a tactical part of your strategy that will always fail to impress me.
JB.

[Johnboy]

John T,
Having had over a month in which to reflect, I now realise that you have joined this forum to campaign for one thing and one thing only which has nothing what-so-ever to do with the ethos of this forum.
After considerable thought I have decided to personally treat you as persona non grata and therefore a dialogue is no longer possible between us.
I joined this forum a long while ago with the aim of helping would-be and those new to gardening who are interested in Kitchen Gardening and feel that over the years I have made a very fair contribution with a modicum of success. On the other hand you have no interest in the well being of this forum other than to use it for your own personal selfish interests. Whether I agree or disagree with those interests is not the point at issue here.
May I respectfully request that you leave this forum and continue as Administrator of the forum, which you truly belong to, and leave us to get on with the day to day issues of this forum, in peace!"
JB.

[JohnT]

Thank you for your responses Johnboy; which as you might expect; I cannot let pass without comment. So with my apologies to those who clearly are not here to read this ongoing saga of personal attacks - and bearing-in mind that as your personal persona non grata, you will not be responding to me anyway - here goes...

John T,
I you are in any way trying to accuse me of conspiracy I must warn you that you are on exceedingly thin ice!

Not for one moment - it had never crossed my mind that this was any kind of conspiracy. I was assuming that you were as unaware of the double-standards being adopted by the other poster, as I had been.

I do not consider that anything in my last posting is in the slightest way rude.

You may not. However; "it doesn't take you long to start squealing" or (from this post) "to play the outraged virgin" - whatever that means - do not exactly seem like polite correspondence to me - and they are certainly comments that would get at least a 'quiet word' from a moderator, on some other forums.

...that will always fail to impress me.
JB.

You clearly misunderstand my intentions JB. I have no desire whatsoever to 'impress' you.

I now realise that you have joined this forum to campaign for one thing and one thing only which has nothing what-so-ever to do with the ethos of this forum.

I have never made any secret of it. You may recall that I mentioned previously, that I really only started to become active on this forum; in response to your comments on a post I had made on another forum. Subsequent to that; my position has been 'reactive' inasmuch as I have tried to speak for the peat-free view, in a forum that is clearly heavily biassed in the other direction.

I fully appreciate the reasons for this forum; and respect the contributions that you have made to it over the years. I would not wish to take anything away from that; nor do I feel qualified (used in it's loosest sense), nor do I have the time, to become involved in most other aspects of the wider forum. I do however firmly believe that it is perfectly reasonable to air the peat-free 'arguments' - especially for those you describe as "would-be and those new to gardening" in an open, informative and friendly way - which is presently not possible on this forum.

As to my leaving the forum; is that not a point for the forum administrators to put to me, if appropriate? Despite your long-standing here; I am not certain that your obvious dislike of the fact that I disagree with your own viewpoint and answer-back to you, gives you any more right to ask me to leave, than I have, to ask you to do the same. Unless the administrators decree otherwise, I will remain a member of this forum - but as previously, I will only post in response to others - such as in this last case, where I see something that is clearly 'wrong'. Were I really the disruptive influence you clearly believe me to be; I would perhaps be posting deliberately controversial or argumentative topics, to inflame dispute. I do not. As to "personal selfish interests" - what are you talking about? Believe me; I obtain no benefit, personal or otherwise, from feeling duty-bound to react to what I see as injustice.

...and leave us to get on with the day to day issues of this forum, in peace!

Might I suggest that probably a better way of doing that, might have been to respond to my 15 June posts something along the lines of "...what do you mean; one of our contributors practising double-standards?", rather than "...it doesn't take you long to start squealing!"

Finally; and although I appreciate that as your persona non grata I will not receive a reply; I really would appreciate your telling me the source of the DEFRA figures you quoted in your earlier post.

Thank you

John