Re: Warm fuzzies and cold pricklies.

[Guest guest]

I dislike the things you mentioned and like the things you mentioned -

other than I like silk.

I am not keen on rubber - but like leather :-) I even like the smell of

leather and the feel of it etc (Mmmmmm I'll try not to go into too much

detail here).

Oooooooo polished fresh wood - the smell the feel the texture - the

feel of grass on bare feet and plush carpets - velvet :-)

Paisley patterns tend to make me feel ill - as do clashing harsh

colours - day glo I am not a fan of - I can deal with most pastel

colours and even bright colours as long as they are not too bright and

do not clash. I prefer jewel like colours - autumn colours rich earth

colours, deep greens - wonderful reds etc.

Some other patterns make me feel ill, but are hard to describe as I

cannot see them correctly as when I view them they don't stay still and

even induce migraines in me - usually cheap carpets in office

enviroments have this affect on me - usually council run benefit places.

I dislike the feel of other peoples feet - with or without socks.

Oh I've just remembered phobia about the feel of cotton wool or tissue

and the like in my mouth - even just thinking about it makes me feel

ill.

I love getting into the bed when the bedding has just been changed -

cool cotton sheets :-) Cool cotton pillow cases too.

I like the feel of hair when someone has just had it cut quite short -

son's just had hair cut today - now I like stroking his head :-)

Smooth glassy surfaces, especially in spherical(sp?) shapes.

Mmmmmmm probably could go on - but I'll leave it here for mo', might

chip in later :-)

>

> What patterns and textures feel good to you and which feel bad?

>

> I hate anything scratchy like wool, burlap, tweed. I don't like silk,

> but love cotton or cotton and polyester blends.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

I dislike the things you mentioned and like the things you mentioned -

other than I like silk.

I am not keen on rubber - but like leather :-) I even like the smell of

leather and the feel of it etc (Mmmmmm I'll try not to go into too much

detail here).

Oooooooo polished fresh wood - the smell the feel the texture - the

feel of grass on bare feet and plush carpets - velvet :-)

Paisley patterns tend to make me feel ill - as do clashing harsh

colours - day glo I am not a fan of - I can deal with most pastel

colours and even bright colours as long as they are not too bright and

do not clash. I prefer jewel like colours - autumn colours rich earth

colours, deep greens - wonderful reds etc.

Some other patterns make me feel ill, but are hard to describe as I

cannot see them correctly as when I view them they don't stay still and

even induce migraines in me - usually cheap carpets in office

enviroments have this affect on me - usually council run benefit places.

I dislike the feel of other peoples feet - with or without socks.

Oh I've just remembered phobia about the feel of cotton wool or tissue

and the like in my mouth - even just thinking about it makes me feel

ill.

I love getting into the bed when the bedding has just been changed -

cool cotton sheets :-) Cool cotton pillow cases too.

I like the feel of hair when someone has just had it cut quite short -

son's just had hair cut today - now I like stroking his head :-)

Smooth glassy surfaces, especially in spherical(sp?) shapes.

Mmmmmmm probably could go on - but I'll leave it here for mo', might

chip in later :-)

>

> What patterns and textures feel good to you and which feel bad?

>

> I hate anything scratchy like wool, burlap, tweed. I don't like silk,

> but love cotton or cotton and polyester blends.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

For me fabrics that sort of shiny like Velvet,

Velour and Silk feel " Creepy " and give me cold

shivers up and down my spine.

I can tolerate most anything else...

Ender

At 04:10 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:

>What patterns and textures feel good to you and which feel bad?

>

>I hate anything scratchy like wool, burlap, tweed. I don't like silk,

>but love cotton or cotton and polyester blends.

>

>Tom

>Administrator

[Guest guest]

For me fabrics that sort of shiny like Velvet,

Velour and Silk feel " Creepy " and give me cold

shivers up and down my spine.

I can tolerate most anything else...

Ender

At 04:10 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote:

>What patterns and textures feel good to you and which feel bad?

>

>I hate anything scratchy like wool, burlap, tweed. I don't like silk,

>but love cotton or cotton and polyester blends.

>

>Tom

>Administrator

[Guest guest]

I like the soft fur of a cat behind its ears. Rabbits and chinchillas seem

to be like that all over.

Of manmade fabrics I prefer viscose, cotton, microfibre, microvelour. Not

crazy about wool or silk (and don't like how silk worms are boiled alive

after they do all that hard work to produce the fibre). Can't stand

polyester or cotton-wool.

Leather I like too, and denim, but I prefer when others wear it, not myself.

Rubber is icky. Not fond of bare skin either.

Inger

Re: Warm fuzzies and cold pricklies.

I dislike the things you mentioned and like the things you mentioned -

other than I like silk.

I am not keen on rubber - but like leather :-) I even like the smell of

leather and the feel of it etc (Mmmmmm I'll try not to go into too much

detail here).

Oooooooo polished fresh wood - the smell the feel the texture - the

feel of grass on bare feet and plush carpets - velvet :-)

Paisley patterns tend to make me feel ill - as do clashing harsh

colours - day glo I am not a fan of - I can deal with most pastel

colours and even bright colours as long as they are not too bright and

do not clash. I prefer jewel like colours - autumn colours rich earth

colours, deep greens - wonderful reds etc.

Some other patterns make me feel ill, but are hard to describe as I

cannot see them correctly as when I view them they don't stay still and

even induce migraines in me - usually cheap carpets in office

enviroments have this affect on me - usually council run benefit places.

I dislike the feel of other peoples feet - with or without socks.

Oh I've just remembered phobia about the feel of cotton wool or tissue

and the like in my mouth - even just thinking about it makes me feel

ill.

I love getting into the bed when the bedding has just been changed -

cool cotton sheets :-) Cool cotton pillow cases too.

I like the feel of hair when someone has just had it cut quite short -

son's just had hair cut today - now I like stroking his head :-)

Smooth glassy surfaces, especially in spherical(sp?) shapes.

Mmmmmmm probably could go on - but I'll leave it here for mo', might

chip in later :-)

>

> What patterns and textures feel good to you and which feel bad?

>

> I hate anything scratchy like wool, burlap, tweed. I don't like silk,

> but love cotton or cotton and polyester blends.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

Re:

> how silk worms are boiled alive

> after they do all that hard work to produce the fibre)

It gets worse than that. Few people know that, besides getting boiled

alive in the end, the silkworms (moth larvae) have *already* gone

through a couple of thousand years of selective breeding that have

turned them from little moths-in-waiting into big, fat whitish

sausage-like things that totally depend on humans and cannot escape:

they can't crawl, they can't climb (so they can't even feed

themselves: they need humans around to serve their mulberry leaves and

water) ...

.... and even the " lucky " few that get left alone long enough to turn

into moths (the silk-weavers need a few to make the next generation of

silkworms) can't fly: they have teeny-tiny wild-moth wings (or

actually smaller, after all that selection for helplessness) on bodies

that weigh a few hundred or thousand times as much as any normal moth.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

Re:

> how silk worms are boiled alive

> after they do all that hard work to produce the fibre)

It gets worse than that. Few people know that, besides getting boiled

alive in the end, the silkworms (moth larvae) have *already* gone

through a couple of thousand years of selective breeding that have

turned them from little moths-in-waiting into big, fat whitish

sausage-like things that totally depend on humans and cannot escape:

they can't crawl, they can't climb (so they can't even feed

themselves: they need humans around to serve their mulberry leaves and

water) ...

.... and even the " lucky " few that get left alone long enough to turn

into moths (the silk-weavers need a few to make the next generation of

silkworms) can't fly: they have teeny-tiny wild-moth wings (or

actually smaller, after all that selection for helplessness) on bodies

that weigh a few hundred or thousand times as much as any normal moth.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

Hi Kate,

Just wanted to welcome you to the forum.

I'm Tom, your administrator. And as you can see, I am an

environmentalst. So you can tell that it irks me the way in which

some creatures are mutated to benefit humans. Most people don't know

that the chickens and turkeys they eat could never fly while they

were alive even though wild chickens and turkeys CAN fly up to tree

branches and things if they need to.

People don't realize that the creatures which give us wool have been

bread so they will die of heat exhaution if not sheered either.

Thanks for providing the info on silkworms.

Tom

Re:

> how silk worms are boiled alive

> after they do all that hard work to produce the fibre)

It gets worse than that. Few people know that, besides getting boiled

alive in the end, the silkworms (moth larvae) have *already* gone

through a couple of thousand years of selective breeding that have

turned them from little moths-in-waiting into big, fat whitish

sausage-like things that totally depend on humans and cannot escape:

they can't crawl, they can't climb (so they can't even feed

themselves: they need humans around to serve their mulberry leaves and

water) ...

.... and even the " lucky " few that get left alone long enough to turn

into moths (the silk-weavers need a few to make the next generation of

silkworms) can't fly: they have teeny-tiny wild-moth wings (or

actually smaller, after all that selection for helplessness) on bodies

that weigh a few hundred or thousand times as much as any normal moth.

[Guest guest]

Hi Kate,

Just wanted to welcome you to the forum.

I'm Tom, your administrator. And as you can see, I am an

environmentalst. So you can tell that it irks me the way in which

some creatures are mutated to benefit humans. Most people don't know

that the chickens and turkeys they eat could never fly while they

were alive even though wild chickens and turkeys CAN fly up to tree

branches and things if they need to.

People don't realize that the creatures which give us wool have been

bread so they will die of heat exhaution if not sheered either.

Thanks for providing the info on silkworms.

Tom

Re:

> how silk worms are boiled alive

> after they do all that hard work to produce the fibre)

It gets worse than that. Few people know that, besides getting boiled

alive in the end, the silkworms (moth larvae) have *already* gone

through a couple of thousand years of selective breeding that have

turned them from little moths-in-waiting into big, fat whitish

sausage-like things that totally depend on humans and cannot escape:

they can't crawl, they can't climb (so they can't even feed

themselves: they need humans around to serve their mulberry leaves and

water) ...

.... and even the " lucky " few that get left alone long enough to turn

into moths (the silk-weavers need a few to make the next generation of

silkworms) can't fly: they have teeny-tiny wild-moth wings (or

actually smaller, after all that selection for helplessness) on bodies

that weigh a few hundred or thousand times as much as any normal moth.

[Guest guest]

Tom - Thanks for your message of welcome, and for your further

information about " the way in which

> some creatures are mutated to benefit humans. "

Temple Grandin's book on animals has quite a lot on this, actually -

she talks about how humans have bred dogs into a permanently childlike

state (compared with wolves) which makes them better pets for us.

Well, at least dogs can still run away and live independently of

humans if they have to.

Beyond silkworms - and chickens, turkeys, and sheep as you mention -

did you know that humans have even made it so that certain *plant "

species can no longer keep alive without humans?

Corn, for example ( " maize " to any UK folks here) - because of the

millennia during which Native Americans bred a wild grass into corn

(breeding for larger kernels that would stay on the cob under a

protective husk of leaves - instead of falling off and blowing away on

the wind like ordinary grass-seeds), by the time other peoples ever

came to the USA the Native Americans had *already* gotten this plant

to such a state that it needs humans just to reproduce. (The seeds

remain trapped in the husk unless a human gets them out. Sure,

occasionally a corncob *does* fall over and sprout in place when it

gets wet - but that leaves you with a couple of hundred baby

corn-plants all trying to grow in the same few square inches and

therefore VERY quickly choking each other to death.)

We know that Native Americans bred grass into corn because of

what archeologists find ... as you dig down to earlier and earlier

layers of Native American settlement, the corncobs/kernels/husks/etc.

found in the remains get more and more grass-like (less and less

corn-like) the further down you dig.

Something similar happened (much earlier and in the Middle East) with

another wild grass: the one that became wheat. (And, yes, the

archeologists have evidence there, too.) Instead of breeding for a

husk, prehistoric Middle Easterners bred for kernels that would stay

on the stalk when they ripened and not just blow off into the wind

when something touched the plant and jiggled the ripe seeds loose.

Achieving this made it possible for humans to conveniently harvest

wheat by sawing off the wheat-heads (with a saw-edged sickle) and

taking these elsewhere for later processing (instead of finding that

all their wheat had blown away overnight).

Or consider nuts and olives. In the wild, before humans came

along, a good-tasting almond (for example) didn't last long enough to

sprout and grow another almond, because birds or animals would eat it

up before it had a chance to sprout. So wild almond-trees (before

humans) had evolved to have bad-tasting and/or nauseating chemicals in

their seeds, as a natural defense (cyanide and prussic acids - the

same chemicals used today in some forms of gas warfare). If an animal

tried one of these almonds, it would spit the nut out on first taste -

if it did happen to eat a few out of extreme hunger or whatever, it

would go off somewhere, get really sick, and throw up ... or die if it

didn't throw up ... and anyway it would never eat another almond

again. Other nut-species in their wild state had also had

bad-tasting/poisonous chemicals, for the same reason of self-defense.

Now ... once in a million times in the wild, there would sprout a

nut-tree a little bit different from the others: one that made little

or none of its species' normal " don't-eat-this " chemicals. Before

humans, such a " little bit different " tree would not leave offspring,

because other critters would eat all those offspring (nuts) before the

nuts got a chance to grow. But ... after humans came along, when

prehistoric humans found a " little bit different " tree with

good-tasting nuts, instead of eating all these nuts the humans would

save the very sweetest ones to take home and plant around their

villages where they could keep critters away from the trees that grew

out of these very special, " little bit different " sweet-tasting nuts.

Result: today, eating a two-pound bag of almonds doesn't kill you

unless you have allergies. Eating a two-pound bag of pits from

peaches/apricots/nectarines/plums - whose ancestors also came from the

same wild plant as almonds - *would* kill you, because the prehistoric

folks who found the wild ancestors of those trees had focused on

breeding for good taste/size/soft texture not in the actual

seed/pit/nut but in the leathery protective shell that grows around

it. So that protective leathery shell became a peach or an apricot or

plum or whatever - soft and yummy, not protective at all - in these

cousins of the almond. (These days, breeders have produced

" all-in-one " peach and apricot trees that have the sweet fruit of the

peach plus a sweet non-poisonous kernel like an almond: NO natural

defenses - in the wild, this would never survive.)

We have olives today because of pretty much the same thing. Wild

olives (which still exist here and there in the Near East and around

the Mediterranean) taste horrible, and so does the oil from them, but

people used it for a variety of purposes. In very early times (right

at the edge where prehistory shades into history), somebody found a

freak olive-tree that didn't taste bad, and started making cuttings

from it and growing them into trees, planting the seeds of the very

best ones, etc. Some religions considered the olive a holy plant

because of its usefulness for oil and other things (Athena, Greek

goddess of wisdom, had the olive-tree as her symbol), so these

strange, rare, non-bad-tasting olives of course quickly got a

reputation as especially holy. In some parts of the world, the

priests/priestesses would grow them and give cuttings from these rare

and special plants *only* to people that the priests/priestesses

considered friendly ... hence the olive-branch as a symbol of peace

and friendship: you wouldn't give one of these priceless plants to

some tribe that had a war with your tribe, but when you and they had

made peace you could of course give the other tribe's chief an

olive-branch as part of the treaty.

In any case - today's olives and many kinds of nuts and fruit and

grains (as well as chicken and turkeys and silkworms) have reached a

state where we've become part of their life-cycle: they literally

can't go on without us. So, if moral humans stay away from silk

because of what we have done to silkworms, ought moral humans to

similarly stay away from corn and wheat and chicken and turkey and

wool and lamb and Italian Pecorino cheese (made from sheep's milk) and

nuts and peaches and apricots and olives and ... (the list goes on and

*on* and ON ... )? Tom, you as an environmentalist probably have some

answer for this.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

Tom - Thanks for your message of welcome, and for your further

information about " the way in which

> some creatures are mutated to benefit humans. "

Temple Grandin's book on animals has quite a lot on this, actually -

she talks about how humans have bred dogs into a permanently childlike

state (compared with wolves) which makes them better pets for us.

Well, at least dogs can still run away and live independently of

humans if they have to.

Beyond silkworms - and chickens, turkeys, and sheep as you mention -

did you know that humans have even made it so that certain *plant "

species can no longer keep alive without humans?

Corn, for example ( " maize " to any UK folks here) - because of the

millennia during which Native Americans bred a wild grass into corn

(breeding for larger kernels that would stay on the cob under a

protective husk of leaves - instead of falling off and blowing away on

the wind like ordinary grass-seeds), by the time other peoples ever

came to the USA the Native Americans had *already* gotten this plant

to such a state that it needs humans just to reproduce. (The seeds

remain trapped in the husk unless a human gets them out. Sure,

occasionally a corncob *does* fall over and sprout in place when it

gets wet - but that leaves you with a couple of hundred baby

corn-plants all trying to grow in the same few square inches and

therefore VERY quickly choking each other to death.)

We know that Native Americans bred grass into corn because of

what archeologists find ... as you dig down to earlier and earlier

layers of Native American settlement, the corncobs/kernels/husks/etc.

found in the remains get more and more grass-like (less and less

corn-like) the further down you dig.

Something similar happened (much earlier and in the Middle East) with

another wild grass: the one that became wheat. (And, yes, the

archeologists have evidence there, too.) Instead of breeding for a

husk, prehistoric Middle Easterners bred for kernels that would stay

on the stalk when they ripened and not just blow off into the wind

when something touched the plant and jiggled the ripe seeds loose.

Achieving this made it possible for humans to conveniently harvest

wheat by sawing off the wheat-heads (with a saw-edged sickle) and

taking these elsewhere for later processing (instead of finding that

all their wheat had blown away overnight).

Or consider nuts and olives. In the wild, before humans came

along, a good-tasting almond (for example) didn't last long enough to

sprout and grow another almond, because birds or animals would eat it

up before it had a chance to sprout. So wild almond-trees (before

humans) had evolved to have bad-tasting and/or nauseating chemicals in

their seeds, as a natural defense (cyanide and prussic acids - the

same chemicals used today in some forms of gas warfare). If an animal

tried one of these almonds, it would spit the nut out on first taste -

if it did happen to eat a few out of extreme hunger or whatever, it

would go off somewhere, get really sick, and throw up ... or die if it

didn't throw up ... and anyway it would never eat another almond

again. Other nut-species in their wild state had also had

bad-tasting/poisonous chemicals, for the same reason of self-defense.

Now ... once in a million times in the wild, there would sprout a

nut-tree a little bit different from the others: one that made little

or none of its species' normal " don't-eat-this " chemicals. Before

humans, such a " little bit different " tree would not leave offspring,

because other critters would eat all those offspring (nuts) before the

nuts got a chance to grow. But ... after humans came along, when

prehistoric humans found a " little bit different " tree with

good-tasting nuts, instead of eating all these nuts the humans would

save the very sweetest ones to take home and plant around their

villages where they could keep critters away from the trees that grew

out of these very special, " little bit different " sweet-tasting nuts.

Result: today, eating a two-pound bag of almonds doesn't kill you

unless you have allergies. Eating a two-pound bag of pits from

peaches/apricots/nectarines/plums - whose ancestors also came from the

same wild plant as almonds - *would* kill you, because the prehistoric

folks who found the wild ancestors of those trees had focused on

breeding for good taste/size/soft texture not in the actual

seed/pit/nut but in the leathery protective shell that grows around

it. So that protective leathery shell became a peach or an apricot or

plum or whatever - soft and yummy, not protective at all - in these

cousins of the almond. (These days, breeders have produced

" all-in-one " peach and apricot trees that have the sweet fruit of the

peach plus a sweet non-poisonous kernel like an almond: NO natural

defenses - in the wild, this would never survive.)

We have olives today because of pretty much the same thing. Wild

olives (which still exist here and there in the Near East and around

the Mediterranean) taste horrible, and so does the oil from them, but

people used it for a variety of purposes. In very early times (right

at the edge where prehistory shades into history), somebody found a

freak olive-tree that didn't taste bad, and started making cuttings

from it and growing them into trees, planting the seeds of the very

best ones, etc. Some religions considered the olive a holy plant

because of its usefulness for oil and other things (Athena, Greek

goddess of wisdom, had the olive-tree as her symbol), so these

strange, rare, non-bad-tasting olives of course quickly got a

reputation as especially holy. In some parts of the world, the

priests/priestesses would grow them and give cuttings from these rare

and special plants *only* to people that the priests/priestesses

considered friendly ... hence the olive-branch as a symbol of peace

and friendship: you wouldn't give one of these priceless plants to

some tribe that had a war with your tribe, but when you and they had

made peace you could of course give the other tribe's chief an

olive-branch as part of the treaty.

In any case - today's olives and many kinds of nuts and fruit and

grains (as well as chicken and turkeys and silkworms) have reached a

state where we've become part of their life-cycle: they literally

can't go on without us. So, if moral humans stay away from silk

because of what we have done to silkworms, ought moral humans to

similarly stay away from corn and wheat and chicken and turkey and

wool and lamb and Italian Pecorino cheese (made from sheep's milk) and

nuts and peaches and apricots and olives and ... (the list goes on and

*on* and ON ... )? Tom, you as an environmentalist probably have some

answer for this.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

I don't know that farming silkworms is that bad. They are just worms without any sense to them. Chickens don't need to be free range to be good. The problem comes from over crowding and then the biggest problem is the constant use of antibiotics on the whole flock. Studies have show that chickens aren't put off being in cages, but they do have a certain size that they like. The study put chickens in cages that had moving walls and they were trained to adjust the size by pecking a button. The chickens would adjust the wall to a certain size and then stop, even though the cage could be expanded much more.

Free range chickens also face their own dangers. One has to realize that the chicken is a prey item for a great many critters out there. Hawks, weasels, foxes, dogs, cats, opossum, raccoons, etc. all prey on them. So leaving them to run around in the open leaves them exposed to predators. Its a catch 22. Do we want to eat the chickens, let something else eat them or exterminate them because there are far too many to release into the wild?

[Guest guest]

Forgot to mention. Yes, is some kind of disease wiped out crops, there probably would be famine for humanity. There is a real concern that terrorists could release a genetically altered plant disease that could wipe out most of the crops in the country. Such an attack would be aided by the fact that farmers these days mostly use commercial seed which drastically limits genetic diversity of crops. Genetic modification has little to do with this, rather it is a fact of the seed sales industry that predated genetic modification.

However, I don't think that the earth would be made barren of plant life. Things might be messy for a time, but most plants would survive such an attack and they would over time reclaim the open fields. I've seen this process occurring in many stages in many different fields. It starts with wild grasses, then thorny plants and bushes. Slowly but surely the trees spread out from the treeline beginning with pines and other fast growing trees, including the "trash trees" and "volunteers". Eventually the slower growing hardwoods will move in. It is also not unusual to see forest move over time. This advance will happen and eventually the old trees in the old forest might die off and leave a clearing. When that happens, the process repeats until the clearing is refilled. Still, there are odd places here and there where nothing more than grass will grow, but I've never read a good explanation for that.

[Guest guest]

I think in this day and age, people are beginning to undo the damage

they have done. The words " free range chickens " used to make people

laugh, but more and more people are not getting behind the concept,

just as they are organicly raised products.

I think people ought to undo the damage they have done, because if they

don't we may inadvertantly wipe oursleves out. Let's say the flu zips

around the world and kills half of us off. The epidemic may last a few

years during which time all these geneticly unreplicating things we've

produce may die out. Possibly we will have some seeds lying around, but

I wouldn't be surprised if, after such a plague, famine would follow.

I also think nature would be out of balance for a while and would take

a bit of time to recover from the widespread deaths of so many oxygen

producing plants and so many animals.

Tom

Administrator

So, if moral humans stay away from silk because of what we have done to

silkworms, ought moral humans to similarly stay away from corn and

wheat and chicken and turkey and wool and lamb and Italian Pecorino

cheese (made from sheep's milk) and nuts and peaches and apricots and

olives and ... (the list goes on and *on* and ON ... )? Tom, you as an

environmentalist probably have some answer for this.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Warm fuzzies and cold pricklies.

I don't know that farming silkworms is that bad. They are just worms without any sense to them.

What do you mean "just worms without any sense to them"? They are living creatures with ability to suffer just like every other creature. I don't like oysters getting pried open and fiddled with to produce pearls either.

> Chickens don't need to be free range to be good.

Taste good? They are free range to be more comfortable, not to taste better!

> The problem comes from over crowding and then the biggest problem is the constant use of antibiotics on the whole flock. Studies have show that chickens aren't put off being in cages, but they do have a certain size that they like. The study put chickens in cages that had moving walls and they were trained to adjust the size by pecking a button. The chickens would adjust the wall to a certain size and then stop, even though the cage could be expanded much more.

I'm sure we humans could be trained to live in a cage too, but would we like it? Ask any inmate at your nearest prison how much they enjoy the safety of their little cage.

Another thing they do to some chickens is to leave the light on for 22 hours a day so as to stimulate them to grow faster. That's nothing but abuse IMO.

> Free range chickens also face their own dangers. One has to realize that the chicken is a prey item for a great many critters out there. Hawks, weasels, foxes, dogs, cats, opossum, raccoons, etc. all prey on them. So leaving them to run around in the open leaves them exposed to predators. Its a catch 22. Do we want to eat the chickens, let something else eat them or exterminate them because there are far too many to release into the wild?

We had that problem with my assistant's chickens. During the day the hawk swirling above to snatch a chicken, and during the night the local fox would invarably get a hen if we forgot to lock them up in the barn at dusk, leaving only a pile of feathers behind. But this is easily solved by either having someone watch over them during day and making sure to lock them up at night or having them in huge netted outdoor enclosures that still allows them to walk around freely. Just not too many in the same space.

Inger

[Guest guest]

Re:

> ... Let's say the flu zips

> around the world and kills half of us off. The epidemic may last a few

> years during which time all these geneticly unreplicating things we've

> produce may die out. Possibly we will have some seeds lying around, but

> I wouldn't be surprised if, after such a plague, famine would follow.

In this connection - do you know that one of the biggest agri-business

companies (Monsanto) sells, to farmers in the Third World and

elsewhere, seed that won't grow unless you spray your fields with

Monsanto-designed pesticides that kill ordinary

(non-Monsanto-engineered) seeds but protect and even fertilize the

Monsanto seeds?

Monsanto also sells (especially in the Third World) seed that will

grow, all right, but whose second generation won't reproduce.

(Monsanto has jiggled with the genetic code of this seed to make this

happen, so that farmers cannot save seeds from year to year and thus

cut into Monsanto profits ... they'll have to buy all their seeds anew

every year, and it seems they go along with this because the seeds

from Monsanto grow faster, larger, etc.

By the way, the class of " genetically unreplicating things " includes

me and my husband (who has Asperger's, as I do). We have tried and

tried for over 12 years to have a child, and have spent lots of money

on fertility treatments and such.

>:-C

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

I love the feel of different textures. I don't think there's one that I

don't like. I always want to touch things. When I'm at a museum or

gallery where things are not behind glass I have to restrain myself

from touching them. I can feel in my closet for a piece of clothing and

recognize it just by touch--is that unusual or can everyone do that?

When I see styrofoam I run but that's more from the sound.

What bothers me are certain visual patterns--the sight of certain

patterns gives me the creeps, usually certain patterns in nature,

mostly microscopic.

>

> What patterns and textures feel good to you and which feel bad?

>

> I hate anything scratchy like wool, burlap, tweed. I don't like silk,

> but love cotton or cotton and polyester blends.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

>>

> In this connection - do you know that one of the biggest agri-

business

> companies (Monsanto) sells, to farmers in the Third World and

> elsewhere, seed that won't grow unless you spray your fields with

> Monsanto-designed pesticides that kill ordinary

> (non-Monsanto-engineered) seeds but protect and even fertilize the

> Monsanto seeds?

>

> Monsanto also sells (especially in the Third World) seed that will

> grow, all right, but whose second generation won't reproduce.

> (Monsanto has jiggled with the genetic code of this seed to make

this

> happen, so that farmers cannot save seeds from year to year and thus

> cut into Monsanto profits ... they'll have to buy all their seeds

anew

> every year, and it seems they go along with this because the seeds

> from Monsanto grow faster, larger, etc.

>

Yeah, this is disgusting and goes totally against what a seed is.

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite,

http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>