Guenny wrote:
how many berries can one person really collect, horde, and use before they just get bored?
That's why you hire Mexicans.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Urban Food Forest
Urban Food ForestFollow
That's why you hire Mexicans.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I once fell into a 5 foot ditch full of blackberries in Chilliwack while taking a drunken ****. I was pulling thorns out two weeks later.
Peimei wrote:
I once fell into a 5 foot ditch full of blackberries in Chilliwack while taking a drunken ****. I was pulling thorns out two weeks later.
Of your ****?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Debalic wrote:
Peimei wrote:
I once fell into a 5 foot ditch full of blackberries in Chilliwack while taking a drunken ****. I was pulling thorns out two weeks later.
Of your ****?
I doubt it would have taken weeks to check that surface area.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Peimei wrote:
I once fell into a 5 foot ditch full of blackberries in Chilliwack while taking a drunken ****. I was pulling thorns out two weeks later.
See this is another problem I have with urban foraging. Some how knowing that some little mammal or even a snake or bird has peed or pooed on my foraged food is not a big deal, but some drunk english ******* pissing on my berries is pretty disgusting.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
How long do you think before some ******* plants poison ivy and sumac next to all the berries?
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I foresee dead bushes and trees very quickly.
We have a VERY small commons in Victoria (Spring Ridge Commons) and it actually works really well.
Ah, good point... we keep the americans in the horse-drawn carriages downtown for a reason
Jimpadan wrote:
How long do you think before some @#%^ plants poison ivy and sumac next to all the berries?
It's seattle. those would drown. Stinging nettles is more likely.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
My gf planted stinging nettle for tea etc in the backyard of her old place.... Landlord was not amused.
If you strip away the outside, the inner fibres of stinging nettle make a wonderful fibre for cloth. Strangely no-one found a way to mass produce it.
Stinging nettle is good for a lot of stuff...However, I can imagine "stinging nettle cloth" would not be easy to market. Would need to be rebranded a bit. Maybe if you called it "natursoft" - a green alternative to cotton!
Olorinus wrote:
Stinging nettle is good for a lot of stuff...However, I can imagine "stinging nettle cloth" would not be easy to market. Would need to be rebranded a bit. Maybe if you called it "natursoft" - a green alternative to cotton!
Cotton is not "green"? Come to think of it, why not just grow cotton and call it a day?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Stinging nettle is good for a lot of stuff...However, I can imagine "stinging nettle cloth" would not be easy to market. Would need to be rebranded a bit. Maybe if you called it "natursoft" - a green alternative to cotton!
Cotton is not "green"? Come to think of it, why not just grow cotton and call it a day?
Maybe Olorinus meant a green alternative, not in that cotton wasn't green, but the other alternatives to cotton weren't green? Of course I'm pretty sure wool and silk are green. Polyester is synthetic so I guess that counts.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
gbaji wrote:
Cotton is not "green"? Come to think of it, why not just grow cotton and call it a day?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Stinging nettle is good for a lot of stuff...However, I can imagine "stinging nettle cloth" would not be easy to market. Would need to be rebranded a bit. Maybe if you called it "natursoft" - a green alternative to cotton!
Cotton is not "green"? Come to think of it, why not just grow cotton and call it a day?
You can't eat cotton.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Mass cotton farming probably involves some decidedly "ungreen" aspects to it but I assume you'd get the same if you were trying to grow, harvest and process thousands and thousands of acres of nettles as well.
Had we gone the stinging nettles route, the Civil War would have happened by 1725.
Had we gone the stinging nettles route, the Civil War would have happened by 1725.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Cotton is not "green"? Come to think of it, why not just grow cotton and call it a day?
You can't eat cotton.
And yet another drunken bet leads to an emergency room visit and stomach pump...
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
"Green" means something that creates as little of a carbon footprint as possible, and is usually in relation to something else, ie x is greener than y.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
Guenny wrote:
"Green" means something that creates as little of a carbon footprint as possible, and is usually in relation to something else, ie x is greener than y.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
Cotton doesn't have to be planted yearly in all cases. It can be harvested as greenly and cleanly as any other plant. It probably doesn't yield as much fiber as hemp would with the same amount of resources but hemp, while strong, isn't as versatile as cotton for making cloth.
There is some real stretching going on here to vilify cotton simply because gbaji mentioned it as being a 'green' plant. lol.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Guenny wrote:
"Green" means something that creates as little of a carbon footprint as possible, and is usually in relation to something else, ie x is greener than y.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
Cotton doesn't have to be planted yearly in all cases. It can be harvested as greenly and cleanly as any other plant. It probably doesn't yield as much fiber as hemp would with the same amount of resources but hemp, while strong, isn't as versatile as cotton for making cloth.
There is some real stretching going on here to vilify cotton simply because gbaji mentioned it as being a 'green' plant. lol.
I was just trying to clarify what the word "green" actually meant. Not just to gbaji, but to everyone who posted after. I wasn't stretching at all, either. And, "it can be done!" is not a defense.
And, from doing just a minute of wiking, I learned this:
Quote:
Cotton covers 2.5% of the world's cultivated land yet uses 16-25% of the world's insecticides, more than any other single major crop
I wasn't really trying to vilify cotton, but now I kind of want to.
Guenny wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Guenny wrote:
"Green" means something that creates as little of a carbon footprint as possible, and is usually in relation to something else, ie x is greener than y.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
I don't know if cotton could be considered "green" to any other cloth fiber plant. Things like hemp, bamboo, etc, are easier to grow and much more sustainable (require less water, pesticides, fuel, etc). Polyester is "green", because instead of putting plastic into landfills we are reusing it in a creative and effective way.
Silk and wool, well, these come from live animals and with silk many die in the process. I supposed that would make wool more sustainable, but I'd bet herds of alpaca create a bigger carbon footprint than silkworm larvae.
Cotton doesn't have to be planted yearly in all cases. It can be harvested as greenly and cleanly as any other plant. It probably doesn't yield as much fiber as hemp would with the same amount of resources but hemp, while strong, isn't as versatile as cotton for making cloth.
There is some real stretching going on here to vilify cotton simply because gbaji mentioned it as being a 'green' plant. lol.
I was just trying to clarify what the word "green" actually meant. Not just to gbaji, but to everyone who posted after. I wasn't stretching at all, either. And, "it can be done!" is not a defense.
And, from doing just a minute of wiking, I learned this:
Quote:
Cotton covers 2.5% of the world's cultivated land yet uses 16-25% of the world's insecticides, more than any other single major crop
I wasn't really trying to vilify cotton, but now I kind of want to.
Poor corn and cotton - they're so exploited.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Guenny wrote:
I wasn't really trying to vilify cotton, but now I kind of want to.
It's the fabric of Zooey Deschenal's life!
I'm too lazy to look up how to spell that
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Stinging nettle is good for a lot of stuff...However, I can imagine "stinging nettle cloth" would not be easy to market. Would need to be rebranded a bit. Maybe if you called it "natursoft" - a green alternative to cotton!
Cotton is not "green"? Come to think of it, why not just grow cotton and call it a day?
Cotton is fUcking nasty, and the pesticides it requires for the many, many bugs and molds that live on it are way worse. The only crop I can think of that's nastier is tobacco. Ugh.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
But if nothing else, the soft interior fibres of stinging nettle are naturally green in colour, as opposed to cotton's white!
Cotton fibers are actually a sort of light yellow green, until it gets bleached to hell and gone. It's funny that it looks so pure and fluffy in the field, and needs so much treatment.
Well, I say "needs". Unbleached cotton just isn't very popular for whatever reason.
Well, I say "needs". Unbleached cotton just isn't very popular for whatever reason.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 301
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (301)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Urban Food Forest
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC