iDont want to make any more of this stuff ...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Why the iMac aint so good
Next: iPads here in the UK!
From: zoara on 29 May 2010 09:26 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >> Can you recommend any courgettes that grow easily? I've got yellow >> somethings that are doing well, but the green bush ones are either >> failing or coming up all stunted and unhealthy-looking. Have I just > > got >> a bad batch? > > Dunno, but we're trying the same type of courgettes as the last three > year's bountiful croppers, and most of them haven't even sprouted. Ah, sounds like courgettes may be simply a bit hit and miss then... -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Peter Ceresole on 29 May 2010 09:35 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > really, do people spend real money on a > frigging vacuum cleaner because the name has some perceived higher > status? I'm sure they do. Remember that the main occupation of human beings is *play*. It's just that Primark Man has a different view of that from (say) M&S Man. But most people don't buy for economically rational reasons. There's a good piece about that in yesterday's FT- which is, by the way, by far and away the best print paper in Britain. Also the most entertaining. But the main point of the article is that economists, in assuming that people make rational spending decisions, have simply been following the path of mathematical determinability, and have for many many decades been demonstrably wrong. With the stupid results that we see around us. By the way, after the Murdoch takeover, he slashed the price of the Times, so he could pile it higher and sell it cheaper. The advertising slogan was '30p, not much for a great paper'. I remember defacing the posters with 'But a hell of a lot for The Times.' But I was younger then... Come to where we live, in south east London, Peckham and environs; high crime, very poor. But flash and bling are still very evident. -- Peter
From: Gareth John on 29 May 2010 10:39 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > On 2010-05-27, T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > >> And isn't it like 'organic' or 'free range' foods. How do we actually > >> know what goes on in the background (and why so many people still > >> grow their own). > > > > We grow our own stuff purely because it's *fun*. > > > > Potatoes, garlic, onions, spring onions, courgettes(sp?), tomatoes, > > and lots > > and lots of chillis. > > Can you recommend any courgettes that grow easily? I've got yellow > somethings that are doing well, but the green bush ones are either > failing or coming up all stunted and unhealthy-looking. Have I just got > a bad batch? Yes, it might be a bad batch of seed - treated, perhaps, with something that's doing them in by mistake. If they're still little (fewer than, say, four 'true' leaves), then it might also be that the soil they're in is too rich for them at that stage of their growth. It might also be the dreaded mosaic virus - although (in my experience) this generally shows up later on, when the plants are established, but before flowering or bearing fruit. If yours are still in pots of (bought) compost that's very unlikely to be the reason. If you're using rainwater to water them, especially from a butt, then you may have given them a fungal disease, which causes wilting of the young plants. If so, throw them out (not on the compost heap), and it's not too late to plant new ones. Stored rainwater is a source of problems for seedlings. Older plants tend to be able to cope with it. But the mosaic virus persists in a plot, so you can minimise trouble by NOT planting them out where you grew last year's crop. Also avoid any area where last year you grew tomatoes, marrows, pumpkins or any of the other solonaceous plants. The answer lies ... in the soil. -- From Gareth John Please pull out the plug if you want to reply by email
From: Pd on 30 May 2010 10:29 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Not that things wil happen as quickly as they must; that bloody fool > Laws has pretty well guaranteed an early election. 'Bloody fool' is exactly right. If he wanted to rent rooms rather than simply admit he was living with his partner, then fine he could've paid out of his own pocket. But the trough was there so he stuck his stupid nose in it. I did wonder why he was allowed such a high profile position by the Tories, but now I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they knew he'd been dodgy with expenses, and were setting him up for a fall. Sometimes simply stupidity is the truth, sometimes those who suspect a Machiavellian conspiracy are right. -- Pd
From: Pd on 30 May 2010 10:31
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > By the way, after the Murdoch takeover, he slashed the price of the > Times, so he could pile it higher and sell it cheaper. The advertising > slogan was '30p, not much for a great paper'. I remember defacing the > posters with 'But a hell of a lot for The Times.' Nice one. -- Pd |