|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron joachim verhagen. Thank you very much! |
|
![[0614] A Fine Wine](/comics/2014-09-08-0614-a-fine-wine.png "[0614] A Fine Wine")
- Lydia: The venison was delicious, Steve. And the wine went perfectly with it!
- Steve: I’m glad you enjoyed it. My roast had kind of a strange aftertaste. And the wine was a bit too… I don’t know… sour for my taste?
- Lydia: Too bad that you got a bad piece.
- Lydia: Can I have seconds?
- Steve: I will… have a look.
- Label: NOW WITH 5% FOX URINE!
- Steve: Haha, what?
|
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2025 Oliver Knörzer
Time to move this date to the restaurant…
… I already think they went too far, and I’ve only seen one step.
Dunno what animal Shadow/Woo gutted, but it probably wasn’t deer. Evidently, Woo has a good idea of what humans don’t find appealing. (I don’t think Lydia will be getting seconds)
Dun dun duuuuun!!!
I’m going to be over there in the restroom throwing up, don’t mind me…
@ Lucario:
I guess that Lydia really got Deer or Roe and normal wine, and Woo&Co. tampered only with Steve’s food.
Urine is alkaline, so it should make the wine bitter, not sour.
myth buster wrote:
Our readers are experts in everything! 😉
Judging from the bottle, I’d said Shadow was a bit more than pissed.
One has to wonder how that wine would taste. Now one has to wonder what in the living hell could that could be in the oven.
Oh my God, this poor guy…
Not quite no, Urine can be an acid or a base depending on what a person’s health and eating habits are. Ph is actually one of the main tests involved in urinalysis.@ myth buster:
I thought that urine tended to be acidic. It probably varies from species to species, though. As for what’s in the oven… skunk? A soy-human (as seen on Adventure Time)? An exploitation of the disconnect many humans have with meat?
Steve: Oh no….. I’ve eaten Bambi!!!!!!!!!!! D-:
Well urine-e walked right into that one Steve.
Looks like you got a “wee” surprise.
I just hope Lydia didn’t suffer the same fate.
The Super Mario Bros Movie must be in the oven.
*Clap Clap Clap* Bravo, sirs!
And from that day on, Steve became a vegetarian 🙂
Personally, I don’t care if it’s bitter or sour. I’ve smelled fox urine once. Pretty close to skunk musk. I’ll pass on that particular wine.
@ Switch Master:
I’m so ashamed. But I musta agree. Thata movie wasa god awful mamamia. But thata Steve deserves it.
@ My Name is Urine (Aka Skunk): but it’s dead!
Aside from the contaminated wine I doubt there’s any game out there that I wouldn’t eat/ haven’t eaten. Cooked up a nice fat racoon once. Bagged it next to a corn field. It was quite tasty broiled. Served it with fresh apple sauce. Tasted alot like fresh pork.
@ bogwombler:
I reeeeeeally don’t think this is the place for you to discuss your racoon-eating experiences…just sayin’.
@ bogwombler:
There’s a time and a place to discuss eating racoons.
I don’t think this is it.
Woo and co should feel very ashamed. Very VERY ashamed.
Who, aside from Sandra, even has the chance to know if the animals care about these things?
No one that I can recall. MAYBE Mr. North (I don’t think he knows? He could be suspicious, though, living with Sandra and Woo).
I’m not the kind of person who likes this kind of humor, even when it’s used for pranks on people who are less than innocent. This guy has no clue what he did wrong, and even if he is scarred for life by the experience, the only way that he would relate this to the animals is from his “blinking” moment before passing out.
It seems to me like he would want to take vengeance rather than stop what he was doing, anyway, since they went THIS far. Doing it slow and steady might have made him more reclusive, I think, but that’s a guess.
Vengeance being hard didn’t stop Batman, so this guy should totally be the Batman of mischievous wildlife.
Logic!
@ Crash:
Novil has a tendency to:
a) advocate cruel or overly harsh treatment of groups that are “tagged” as strongly disliked
b) portray this unfair treatment of such groups as “fair”.
c) paint these favored and disfavored groups in a black and white light.
If you look closely at this comic, this is everywhere. There is a LOT of justification of favored points of view and groups (everyone ends up either agreeing with the favored groups, or looking like a simplistically thinking, barbaric, horrible, poor-at-reasoning person/animal — or someone who any of a number of other OBVIOUSLY bad traits.
I suspect that this is actually indicative of how the author wishes to regard the world: opponents are simplifiedly so — horrid. It’s justified, thus, to use “cruel” or especially harsh methods of “warfare” against such groups.
…human beings are quite a lot more complex than this. Perhaps the most appropriate term for the characters within this comic is “caricatures” — they all feel too exaggeratedly made to support the particular point of a comic… and too flat.
To be honest, I find this entire comic generally distasteful in this regard. There are numerous references one can find throughout which show this. See: the drug sting (Ye Thuza/Cloud)… the recent arc re: Dolores Umbridge, very early comic re: Monsanto bribes, comic re: Vanessa Carlton and Katy Perry.
The fact that the author refers to real people and situations in this manner is what makes me suspect that
That said, there are clevernesses within it, and I enjoy a few of these, abstracted from the overall worldview that this comic puts forth.
Did he have any children?
I don’t think I want to know what he found in the last panel.
LOL I deliberately posted it in response to the apparent direction this strip is going in. See it as a shot across the bow. 😉 @ Yuki:
Z wrote:
You must not like many comics… or anything else. Simplifying things to monochrome for the sake of a gag is pretty much comedy 101.
Meh. Fox urine is sterile. No problem there.
@ Z:
**The fact that the author refers to real people and situations in this manner is what makes me suspect that he feels this way in real life.
Writing is an expression of an aspect of the self.
Being able to write the script for a dream world or comic is, in a way, the perfect stage to write one’s characters as one thinks the world SHOULD be.
How GOOD people should act, and how BAD, TERRIBLE, STUPID people really are/should be treated. They should get their just deserts!
The above is … how I very strongly feel the author’s underlying portrayal of his worlds comes across.
…It’s actually really very understandable why one writes this way. There are goods and virtues we see in the world, and certain people can experience these being unrecognized and gone against SO STRONGLY… that it’s just SO OBVIOUS, and SO WRONG of them, and SO RIGHT of us…
As a matter of fact, I grew up in an abusive childhood and used to write similar stories. The feel — the emphasis behind how GOOD and how BAD and WRONG certain characters were, respectively, gave my characters an uncomfortable unbalancedness and flatness to me… but I was really defending a way that I thought people should be… and a way that I thought most people kept missing.
I think that Novil does something similar with his portrayal of, say, the mistakes of “feminists”, or of Monsanto, or of “pop stars (“Katy Perry”).
But, ultimately, I find that this method of looking at the world … encourages oversimplification.
There is a lot of good capable in the world, and people do a bad job of it all over the place in TONS of ways, so it’s very understandable to really want to create a character that’s really good.
You can see this in “Lili” (Lilith) of the Gaia comic, where the INTENSE EMPHASIS of good and bad is portrayed a little less black-and-white flatly.
It’s also shown that he has an internal awareness of this as a potentially significant issue — the warning above Gaia comment boxes declares the words “Mary Sue” off limits.
This is the sort of critique that I would have passed off as “nonsense” and “not understanding my work/the good in it/the point of it” before in my own overly simplistic writing.
It is the type of critique that one strongly dismisses as “You don’t get it — you don’t get what good can *really* look like. You’re so wrapped up in your small ideas of what a “good person” might be able to be like.”
…or just “You don’t get what I’m doing. I’m doing this portrayal of this point very well.”
It was all accompanied with a being convinced that I was right — that this one way of looking at things was very, utterly justified. You can see this in Novil’s response to the “feminist” story arc. His comment was to the effect of… seeing all the uproar, and pre-empting it.. and saying: “You can criticize the right, but you can’t criticize the left without mass uproar.”
This comment preempts a response — it shows that one is expecting uproar and has already classified it in one’s mind as being because of one particular reason, in one particular framework.
…there are many, many, many frameworks human beings all work from and can view the world from.
((To be utterly clear, I am “apolitical” in terms of “left” and “right”. I find many problems in most ideologies, and I find them to be overly simplified.
I do not necessarily find issues in attacking or highlighting unusual points of view, such as holes in particular simplistic errors in “feminism”, or Monsanto, or statistic-like treatment of people (Katy Perry). ))
I do find problems with the way Novil promulgates it — it promotes a blindness and tunnel-vision of the world. It shows problems which are real and valid, but uses the existence of those problems to oversimplify things into false dichotomies.
This way of treating people WOULD be utterly fine and okay if things really were … so simplistically one-stranded, …as we’re prone to view the world as, as people, when we become determined to view the world in a particular way…
But, the world, and people do NOT conform to our tunnel vision. It is NOT CORRECT to promote the attacking of our opponents as inhuman, no matter how very justified we feel…. because they are human, and more correct than that one-stranded view gives them.
“Principle of charity” and “emotional vampire — paranoid vampire” and the unequal application of critiques on one’s opponents vs. oneself… and the unequal giving of latitude to oneself/one’s group vs. one’s opponents all fit very well here.
Emotional vampires of the “paranoid” variety are a specific phenomena, described in a specific framework of thinking. I have the personal theory that such “paranoid emotional vampirism” comes from not feeling as if one’s ideas of correctness are being correctly acknowledged in society.
This leads us to projecting those “correct” “values” onto others/society, which is what “emotional vampire” refers to… and, “paranoid” vampires (I don’t really think the term “paranoid” is terribly correctly evocative of the meaning as it is used here, but… that’s the term used. 🙂 ) see what they think is “correct” for the world.
This can be seen in visionaries, and I don’t think that this is inherently bad! Of course some people will see ways of living and good that many others don’t see — it’s not wrong to voice these, or try to change the majority of people when they are actually going about something badly, or approaching the world badly.
But, this type of approach to life (the type that’s been described as “paranoid emotional vampire”) can lead to the justification of specifically cruel, or unusually harsh or severe treatment of opposing groups of people. Including the sort of statement that such people “should be killed”, etc. (which can also be seen in the previous “feminist” arc).
To say that such things are “not the point,” “not serious,” “just a joke,” “part of something bigger” (assassins like Ye Thuza are cool — again, I am not attacking the concept of a very good person who fights properly for good values… or the lots of good that promotes this sort of writing and worldview.)…
misses the point. There IS something which causes it to be expressed this way.
I made many many many statements to the (not really serious) effect of “I’ll kill xxx for being such an idiot” when people did something that was SO WRONG-seeming to me.
…but in truth, the reason that one makes such statements — that one considers advocating harsh, callous treatment of other human beings is a dishonesty, not wanting to give any sort of understanding, legitimacy, or …sameness to an opposed party, even though it is in various ways entirely valid and correct to do so.
It is like a kid telling you how very much he hates that mean bully, and that mean bully kid must be the most horrible person on earth and be rotten… and have no understandable reasons for having bullied you, etc….
It is also like the very common thinking bias where we (humans) apply the reasons for an action or behavior or demeanor as… a “story” when thinking about ourselves, or maybe those close to us.
But, when applied to strangers, we treat them as “static”, and we think that their reasons arise from some fixed personality trait.
For example, if I am really stressed, my romantic partner just got very sick, someone splashed hot coffee at me for no reason, and I have been late to everything today… then I “snap” angrily at someone, I will likely understand why I am being angry/stressed as part of that narrative.
But, if someone just comes up to the hypothetical me and “snaps” angrily… humans are prone to think things like “He must be an angry person.” ..or, “He’s a rude person.” …or, “He’s an insensitive person.” etc.
We are, however, both disregarding the feelings of others, and we could both have our own internal stresses and issues to deal with.
………
Actually, I think that the main reason that Novil writes like this — and I did in the past — is because we are afraid to give legitimacy, rightness, correctness, or understanding to an opposing approach to life or point of view.
THAT is why we oversimplify things.
……………….
And I would be unsurprised if — unless Novil grows as a person — one will find this “INTENSE EMPHASIS” underlying all of his writing.
I really do see a lot of good in why one would write this way, but… that is why I ultimately find it dishonest.
@ Z:
This is not a morality tale. It’s a comic strip. The strip you sound like you’d want to write would be intolerably awful. Comedy comes from showing over-the-top situations like this. Some sort of careful analysis (like yours) isn’t entertainment, it’s a lecture. Now I get that you’re basing your opinion on introspection of your own prior motives in creating your own works, but frankly, it sounds like you’re a little messed up, and the things you created were probably a little messed up, and you now realize that and are unfortunately overgeneralizing and projecting your own insecurities onto everything you see, perhaps a little overzealously.
The trainwreck is in slow motion…..
@ Z:
Dude it’s a comic. Chill. If you don’t like it. Then don’t read it.
@ Z:
…I have a (bad) tendency to write in too-long ways which are also vague or unclear.
So, for the most blunt, direct application of what I mean:
In this story arc, the arc being funny, or entertaining… relies upon it being justified to give this mean, wrong person his just deserts.
He humiliated, or barged in on, Shadow — you can see the very one-sided view of the world here. The interpretation which is required for this to be funny and entertaining is purely from this view.
And, I find the view completely, very understandable.
(I have many times been intruded upon in ways which someone did not understand was intrusive but felt REALLY intrusive to me, and reacted in similar ways to Shadow, emotionally speaking.
I felt wronged, and I felt that the intrusion upon me was a great wrong. I still think such things were wrong, but … there is more going on there than just me being wronged, or intruded upon.
Conversely, I have actually many times — as a child — created a TON of noise and very genuinely honestly believed that the people I might disturb ought to be understanding of me… and that I had good reasons — I was pursuing a beautiful insight, or beautiful freedom of expression, etc.)
…
It is just very clear that there are two points of view here, that the photographer does NOT understand… and that nonetheless, the author seems to feel that it’s justified for Shadow to pursue harsh, unyielding attack based on his perception of being wronged.
This is an extremely clear example of justifying the one-stranded view which ‘is because we are afraid to give legitimacy, rightness, correctness, or understanding to an opposing approach to life or point of view.’
…
Actually, probably many readers find the views very understandable and so go along with this… dishonest, intense emphasis on these black-and-white/one-stranded approaches to “the enemy” (opposing point of view).
This is likely why nothing is really brought up until something like the “feminism” arc provokes some people who don’t already agree with the point of view being advanced.
It’s really scary to give.. legitimacy, understanding, rightness, correctness, or even some inverted degree of sameness to the approaches to life we dislike.
…you might, just maybe, be allowing something really incorrect if you give those things to an approach that you see causes lots of harm.
If one acknowledges potential complexity, then one has to hold… just a little less tightly… to the point of view of our own that we’re holding so dear, that we care so much about!
It’s hard, but ultimately, it makes us more honest people.
And, it allows us to deal with reality much more clearly.
…
In otherwords, another.. small piece of how to approach things more honestly:
If a party we really empathize with intrudes on someone else and
a) apologizes profusely, but the other party refuses and seeks revenge… would we defend the apology?
“Hey, he apologized already — why are you making such a big deal of it?”
…or would we consider the other party wronged and acquiesce to their right to thinking our party is a bastard and wanting revenge?
b) doesn’t understand that it was an intrusion, and the other party seeks revenge…
Would we defend our innocence? “Sandra didn’t know! She really didn’t know that it was intrusive — she was innocent.”
…or would we consider the other party wronged and acquiesce to their right to thinking our party is a bastard and wanting revenge?
I think that neither is fully correct. Both awarenesses are part of the weaving of reality, and one cannot simply choose the one which one likes best, and defend that.
If someone was intruded upon and feels hurt/wronged/embarrassed/what-have-you, that is there.
If the other party is ‘innocent’ to whatever degree, that is there, too.
…then, you have a hurt party and a partly to fully “innocent” person in terms of being unaware their actions would cause suffering.
The solution to that is extremely complex. Should the “innocent” look at being more aware of reality from new perspectives, if their current actions are causing them to be blind to suffering?
Why did the hurt party experience the suffering? Internal reasons? External? Silly values? Good values?
…and, also, there is the difficult truth/lesson that we all experience suffering which is influenced by both ourselves and others, and the current universe (simplistically, something like a drought or a storm).
The world is really complicated.
Slapstick humor is cute and amusing, and the revenge/”puff puff!” reaction can be very funny… such as with Roadrunner/Coyote… but that’s not what’s being underlyingly portrayed here. There is a much deeper dishonesty in worldview.
Novil is determined to incorporate his personal… construction of how the world is in his writings, and… again, I can really see this and find this beautiful.
‘
I obviously do the same and have tried to do the same in the past quite a lot…
But, in this way, one projects the INTENSE EMPHASIS and INSISTENCE of one’s biases into the world, and the one one writes.
And, writing does influence the world — what other human beings think, and how they regard their lives and good ways to go about their lives.
As the Native American tale says, there are two wolves within us — one which pursues the beautiful and good, and one which pursues the ugly and bad.
Which do you feed, and which do you feed in others?
That is why I take the time to critique this. Writings, especially, impact the “wolf” others feed.
(The two “wolves” a simple way of regarding things, but… if regarded more or less from the point of view of enlightenment, is a very useful way to think about things. And accurate in many ways.)
DomBB wrote:
Amen, Brother, you Testify!!!!!
@Z
This comic is simplistic in a lot of ways, but it does not ignore shades of grey in ideology as you suggest… here are a list of examples from some of the good guys…
Cloud: Probably the most well balanced human in the comic…. comes from a family that is (to put it kindly) Dangerously Psychotic….
Larissa…. Well meaning and loveable, but…… well, you’ve read the strip…
Richard… Loving father doing his best to raise a daughter on his own, typical corporate middle management…. also a game junkie, a tech junkie, and a computer junkie, and has no clue how destructive his behavior might be for Sandra in the future (children learn by watching thier parents).
Ye-Thuza: Ahem…..a, uh, uhm, I won’t comment as long as she still has that Katana…..
the current Beastial conspiracy: Even the animals are aware of how wrong what they are doing is…..
The list goes on and on… he does show shades of grey. Whether I agree with all his points or not is irrelevant. I have enjoyed this strip immensely, and I invite you to join me and do the same!
At least Woo and company were honorable enough to spare Lydia. She may be used as a tool of his punishment, but it looks like she won’t actually be a target of the punishment herself.
@ Z:
I find your argument pretty valid as long as if this comic is Novil’s depiction of what things should be.
However, do not forget that Novil may actually be writing the opposite of what he thinks.
Take for example, “Carrie”, Stephen King makes it clear in “On Writing A Memoir of the Craft” that he cannot relate to the Carrie portrayed in the book in any way, but he did know why he would pitty her do to knowing from afar of people who were bullied to the point of ruin:
“I never liked Carrie, that female version of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but through Sondra and Doddie I came at last to understand her a little. I pitied her and I pitied her classmates as well, because I had been one of them once upon a time.” (P.82)
However, this Sandra and Woo comic is not a book, where the author can spend as many words as they like detailing the thought process behind characters to allow readers to at least understand them a little. Instead, Novil has only so many panels and words he can implement into the comic two times a week. As a result, the blandness from lack of information in a comic is not as big a deal as the blandness from lack of information in a story. Comic writers try to mitigate this problem by creating short one strip plots that are very straight forward for the reader and make characters with very simple personalities.
Take for example, those comics in which normally the hero does not believe in killing criminals, but then in an issue suddenly just kills a villain. Why? Because it turns out that the villain is a vampire, and thus isn’t human and already dead, which justifies the kill. No further explanation needed.
However, comic strips like these lead to the problem of readers questioning the morality behind such actions. Such as the so called, what measure is a non-human? Then complain that the vampire in the above example should have been dealt with in another way. In a book, the writer would be able to further justify the plot with more words, and as such books don’t tend to lead to readers thinking that the writer is oversimplifying everything.
Do to the length of the media in which the story takes place, Novil would find it insanely difficult to justify anything with lots of detailed explanations. The shortness of specific types of media leading to information loss is also an explanation for why movies tend to be able to ruin the plot that made the books they’re based on so good.
For Novil specifically, I believe that he does feel pity for the so called villains in his comics, and he obviously would not support the forced relocation of feminist teachers to the Arabian Emrites. However, he has to end the plot of the strip quickly, and can’t really show what happened to that certain teacher, or else readers would complain that it’s too long or boring.
Giving details to characters would also have the same problem, in which reader’s would complain that they would like to see the other characters come back. Thus characters in strips need very straight forward personalities in order to keep the comic switching story lines and characters as fast as possible. As a consequence, the simplification of personalities portrayed is sometimes bad, because of course in real life you can’t find a one-dimensional character.
If you want examples of readers finding faults with a comic simply because of the author trying to expand upon plots and characters, just take a look at the comments section of “Nerf Now!!”, where readers regularly complain about too much Dota or Team Fortress 2, too long story arcs, and why isn’t Engie back in the comic yet.
In short, I guess I can attempt to simplify this into a conclusion, but then future readers of this comment wouldn’t trully be able to get as much as possible about what I’m trying to say. My conclusion is this, if you want more realism, and not the so called over exaggeration or oversimplification of characters and plots, go read a book, and stop trying to implicate Novil of not growing as a person, because you don’t know him. He hasn’t written a detailed article of his thinking process behind making strips, and you don’t have the necessary information to say that one is wrong or right or to make then worst action of all, to judge. Thank you Sir or Maddam for reading this and have a good day or night.
Note: If you’ve just skipped down to this sentence without reading through all of the above. Then go back and read it or otherwise don’t comment on this comment.
@ GBiv:
Also, one more thing for future commenters out there. This doesn’t necessarily apply to Z, because he or she might have never thought of this before now.
Don’t you dare accuse Novil of not growing as a person or being not adultlike (Z, I know you didn’t mention the adult part but future commenters might do that). People don’t define what adulthood means in terms of being a person. It’s silly to think that way. Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis in his paper, “On Three Ways of Writing for Children” (Words in italics instead have single quotations):
“Critics who treat ‘adult’ as a term of
approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult
themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the
grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being
childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And
in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy
symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into
middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult
is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy
tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing
so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put
away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire
to be very grown up.”
@ Z:
For your argument to work, you have to decline the existence of satire, or any form of cultural meme/inside joke.
Simple fact is, people make jokes about these groups because they can make jokes about these groups.
Terry Pratchett makes fun of philosophers all the time, not to mention that he has an entire book dedicated to referencing every joke possible about Australia, from being filled with deadly animals to what kind of beer they like.
Douglas Adams…well…
“It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it… anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” – The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
To say those “encourage oversimplification” is, well, not true.
It’s a joke. It’s satire. But mostly, it’s a joke. The feminist arc was especially satire, a large exaggeration of the feminist movement meant to poke fun at the idea of being “too liberal” in a sense. This arc, on the other hand, is mostly just jokes along the lines of “what would animals say if they saw all those nature websites/blogs with them doing their business?”
It’s meant to be funny. Yeah, it expresses an opinion, all literature does, whether we want it to or not. If you don’t agree with that opinion, you don’t have to agree with it because a single comic said so, and if you find yourself disagreeing with a large chunk of the comic strips, the best option would be to try and find a strip more suited to your own opinion, instead of gulping down the one you don’t like.
Laugh at the jokes, don’t look so far into things.
Oh gods ………
It’s PEOPLE! THE VENISON IS PEEEOOPLLLEEE!
myth buster wrote:
Usually it is, but there are bodily disorders that can decrease the pH to very slightly acidic- roughly 6.7, for a number.
Source: I work in fertilizers and know people who have tested acidic with my pH testing strips.
Of course I wouldn’t use my meters, but the strips are pretty accurate too.
However I know nothing of fox urine, if you do I retract this.
Oh.
Monsanto just sells highly concentrated fertilizers.
But please, take potshots all you want- they are my company’s competitors 😉
We don’t kill stuff, we make fertilizers: organic ones at that.
… Well some conventional stuff too but don’t get me started on organic produce hype. Google pyrethrins, then google “Pyganic”
Hahahah was that a shocker? You bet that’s certified organic, it is a totally natural flower extract. You bet organic growers will use it, you bet it will kill every bug in your field (including the beneficials!) don’t sniff it either. Nearly knocked me out standing near a spray rig.
But WHOOOOA don’t you dare use Urea nitrate 32% in the irrigation water, that’ll never be organic. So mixed up and folks don’t know what they are talking about (some govt. dude tries to assert that a stinging nettle extract should not be organic certified because since we use it to replace fumigation, it must itself be a fumigant. How clueless about your own field of study can you be?)
Wow whoops it is late. Pardon my incomprehensible soapboxing…
If they’ve killed his dog then i’m not sure how to feel. either way i think they’ve kinda overreacted to the photos
I have a far too twisted (and DARK) sense of humor to try and fashion a guess towards what’s in the oven so I’m going to take the high road on this one and guess some kind of giant as hell bug (didn’t say I’d make sense).
I just don’t see them killing another animal to make some kind of point. I’d feel like that would be a little too… hypocritical, you know? So all I’m left with is the answers that don’t make sense or the answers that are too… graphic to show.
@ Alakaslam:Urea nitrate sounds organic to me.
But then I live near a manufacturer of heavy organic chemicals.
Hmmm did he have any pets?