I want to know why my March issue came addressed to my son!

I don't think he'll be patronizing any of the advertisers.

Thank you all for taking the time to share your reaction to what we're doing. We do read your comments, talk them over and think hard about your suggestions.

Let me first respond to your remarks about the content, because that is within my control. But before I do that, I feel compelled to state that my colleagues here are without exception hard-working and committed to serving our subscribers, and fairly - but certainly not over - paid. Which isn't to say that I don't understand that our subscribers at times feel frustrated by customer service problems.

Now about the content. In my 15 years at OG, I've learned that the one thing every reader wants from us is how-to gardening information. Some come to us with more interest in organic political issues, others want more about homesteading or gardening lifestyle. My approach has been and I expect will continue to be giving you lots of information about how to grow a great garden, and limited coverage of these other interests.

The toughest challenge we face in putting together each issue is in finding balance. Between info that's accessible to the beginner, stimulating for intermediate gardener and valuable to our advanced readers. I'd say we've chosen to err on the side of accessibility, believing that it best serves our mission to entice as many gardeners as possible to use organic methods.

Further, I believe it's vital that we show how beautiful and satisfying growing the organic way is. Great photographs may fill space some would rather see used for text, but they do inform and inspire in their own way. Were working hard to make sure that our photos and illustrations do give you something you can use.

I said that weve chosen to err on the side of the beginner, but I recognize that we may have gone further than necessary. And well be even more mindful that we need to serve many of you veterans better. brennewomans remarks about how Small Farm resolves this makes a lot of sense to me and well be considering how we can emulate it.

Still, I feel compelled to point you to articles in a few recent issues that I think do offer you information you havent had before. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

* Journey to the Root Zone (Nov/Dec) An in-depth look at soil life and how it affects your garden. Written by Erika Jensen, a thoughtful and knowledgeable market gardener in Wisconsin. (Shes now working on an article about watering systems for an upcoming issue that we both believe will be very useful to any serious gardener.)

* Bees (Jan/Feb) This explanation from a world-class entomologist about the different types of bees, how they live and affect your garden fascinated us. Not necessarily full of tips, I realize, but a way to better appreciate and understand how nature works, which to me is the essence of organic gardening.

* The Season of Wildflowers (March) An experienced gardener and author introduces us to a selection of beautiful, care-free native plants that connect us to the landscape.

* Know Your Soil (March) Have you all seen this series of tests known as the Willamette Soil Quality Card? It seems to me and the scientists and farmers who developed it - a helpful way to assess the various qualities of garden soil at home.

In just about every article, we are seeking out the scientists, growers and others who have experience to share from their specific conditions. I believe that interviewing these experts and reporting their findings to you provides richer and more trust-worthy information than stories written based on one individuals experience. Not a judgment of other magazines; just an explanation of how were trying to give you your moneys worth.

OK, that brings me to the question of our business. You can be sure that we do not make editorial choices to generate advertising revenue. That has been tried in the past with OG, and its as clear as can be that this never works for us. Were glad to have Toyota and other advertisers, but we are making the magazine to inform and entertain our readers.

The fact is, OGs business has suffered in a variety of ways from the instability of recent years. Our business managers and I believe that we need to rebuild it sensibly, sustainably. So, if you check, we have 12 more pages in every issue this year than last. This is within our means, so we dont sink into the red, and it shows our customers (and, yes, the advertisers who help pay our bills) that we are growing steadily, not on another binge which we will have to recover from.

I could go on and explain why our business is very different from some of the other publications you cite, but this post is already long enough to give your scroll finger a cramp. Ill just say that we know you have lots of ways to spend your money and appreciate those of you who do subscribe. And we are grateful that you take the time to tell us what you think; we do take it to heart. We always welcome your specific ideas and suggestions for how we can do better.

Thanks,

Scott

Browngorker,

It's continually amazing how you can so misconstrue people's motivations for the absolute worst. Arrogance? Thanks, good way to start a flame. Instead, I will simply point out the difference between a tone of 'arrogance in thinking they could do better than the OG staff' and the prevailing tone for the past year and more of 'why should we read -- or buy -- a magazine called Organic Gardening that is not organic nor helps me garden?'

I have spent a year listening to people promise that OG will get better. "Give me three or four issues! I gotta have room to improve content!" Well, it's been four or five, and OG is still boring and worthy of only a half-hour skim. Even the ads are not my style -- who's gonna plop down $800 on a stove? Not me!

I've been patient. I will try to continue to be patient -- at least until my subscription runs out. Instead of comparing OG to another mag, perhaps next time I'll compare today's OG to the OG of 20 years ago? Today's OG article on backyard landscaping to the 1970's article? It's still a sad, sad commentary. And this sad lack of content -- lack of something to sink my teeth into -- is what's making me look for other mags to invest in.

So, Browngorker, stop that "more in sorrow than in anger" righteousness. It looks bad on you. Try some empathy -- we're trying to help a good publication become something we can give money to. Or would you just have us demand our $$ back and cancel our subscriptions right now?

Scott, that was very well put. You committed to nothing, countered that space-taking pictures and basic basic articles are necessary, and pointed out that you've improved from (frankly) execrable -- not hard to do. But let's take a look at this from a more objective point of view. People who have computers have, obviously, extra cash (at least some). These are the people, obviously, who might be able to look at ad space and buy from some of your advertisers. These are also the people who might have made it to this website. These are also the people who post in these G2G forums. These people, who your advertisers are most interested in, are chiming in here on these kinds of threads. How many of us are saying "I love it just the way it is!" I see a lot more "This is not enough" and "It's getting better...not a lot...but I suppose it's better than nothing" and "I gave up my subscription, it's not worth it" and, even worse, "Where is that other mag? I want to subscribe to IT instead!"

You're losing us, dude. We've been patient for a long time and this is not enough of a reward. You've got until my subscription runs out, and if there's no great change -- heck, if you can't get me to read your mag for a full hour -- I am taking my and my mother's and my best friends' (4 of them) subscription dollars to MEN or Countryside or something else worth our time and money.

I'm not sure what kind of commitment you are looking for, aris. I was attempting to explain what choices we are making and why. You are disagreeing with those choices - I hear that.

Likewise, I'm not sure what your point is about our advertising. You don't seem to want any advertising and what we have isn't your "style." But you say our advertisers are most interested in people like you?

And you didn't comment on the articles I referred to: Were they boring and worthy only of a skim?

What you've seen in Jan/Feb and March is the direction we're going. We're striving to achieve a better balance with every issue, but I do not (nor have I ever suggested I would) intend to transform OG into a magazine like Countryside or MEN - both well-done publications (Cheryl Long, the editor of MEN was a colleague of mine here at OG and someone I respect deeply) but not who we are.

Hope that's clearer.

Scott

Please note: the tone of this post is FRUSTRATION. We have all collectively spent the past year and more pounding our heads on the doors of the staff of OG. Nothing I have seen in the last couple of issues has shown me that we're worth listening to.

>Likewise, I'm not sure what your point is about our
>advertising. You don't seem to want any advertising
>and what we have isn't your "style." But you say our
>advertisers are most interested in people like you?

I am single. I am college-educated. I am a professional. I have money. I want to spend it on gardening products. I have a garden. I am looking to buy property. I'd say that might possibly make me someone that might be called a consumer, yes -- and maybe possibly a consumer that advertisers are looking to sway. Heck, let's go out on a limb and say that I might even buy things from a gardening magazine's ads that I could use in gardening.

HOWEVER I do not want to slap down 20K+ for a Honda Prius or a Silverado Truck. I don't want a riding mower, a $400 mower, or a retractable canopy. I don't want $130 hand spades, vinyl watering can purses, or yet another retractable canopy. And that's just the first third of your new magazine.

Admittedly, if upon receiving the new issues of Organic Gardening Magazine, I didn't sigh in anticipation of hope again slaughtered and left bleeding in bite-sized pretty pieces of mostly nothing interesting on the floor, perhaps I'd be more likely to look on a chipper that's so big it requires its own tow hook with favor.


>And you didn't comment on the articles I referred to:

Okay the bee thing was good...except it didn't touch on things like the African Bee issue that people are worried about, the kinds of diseases bees are now getting, why, and how to prevent them, what kinds of bees are local to geographical areas, or even honey production. Everything in an organic garden should be made to do at least double duty. Heck, it didn't even mention the wonderful Portuguese Bee, one of the most commonly used bees here in the Bay Area for backyard suburban farmers! Incredible pollinators, they also give fantastic honey and are very even-tempered. Heck, there weren't even a mention in the entire article of where to go to find more information. NO, this was not a memorable article. It was interesting...but not information I can or will use. Give me a 'puter, a modem, and thirty minutes and I can write you a dissertation on bees that touches everything mentioned in your article...plus what kind would be best for your locale, what to look out for, what products you'll need to beekeep, where to find them at the best prices, and what clubs to call on with questions. No, it won't be as polished or pretty, but it'll be more useful.


>were they boring and worthy only of a skim?

What part of
"OG is still boring and worthy of only a half-hour skim."
"I will be using NO tips from (this issue of) OG this spring...."
"(OG has) tepid thin articles that masquerade as good reading (apparently huge pretty pictures are more important than straight information and content)...."
" Honestly...there was NOTHING in this OG that I (again) could not have written myself, and even if I thought about it as if I were a newbie gardener, you fall dreadfully short."
is not clear? If you're looking for WHY I found the March 2004 issue so disappointing, git yourself a new cuppa and settle down for a nice long read.


>We always welcome your specific ideas and suggestions for how we can do better.

Specific examples? Ratios such as
30 mins : 4 + hrs (reading time)
.5 : 2.5 (page length)
hypocritical : exemplified (practice what you preach)
7 : 34 (articles)
60 : 130 (pages)
18 : 20 (full pages of ads
$4.16 : $3 (price)
aren't specific enough for you? Since facts seem to be making about as much dent as a David's slingshot at The Incredible Hulk, let me try recap and sarcasm. Sarchasm, perhaps.

Man, it's not like we haven't all been complaining about the lack of both depth and breadth in your articles of late; apparently the phrases 'not enough information', 'too short', 'basic stuff we all already know', and 'pretty pictures do not make up for missing information' aren't specific enough, eh?

*sighs mightily.* Scott, if you can't figure out that we want MORE INFO out of your work from the past year's griping, either we are speaking different languages or you are an engineer and not a person who can interface with the public. That's okay, I have a great liking of engineers.

Okay, let me make this even more specific because I REALLY WANT OG TO DO BETTER. I spent another half an hour doing research into how your articles can be specifically shown as insufficient, incomplete, or otherwise about as in-depth as a three-minute tour of the Louvre. And, NO, doing research for YOUR edification about how to improve YOUR work does not count towards my limit of an hour's reading your new mags or I cancel my subscription!

Here are most of the basic articles that this current issue put out, paraphrased.

Lawn Care
Spring greens -- Salads
New Tools
Wildflowers
Potatoes
Staking Flowers
Creating New Beds
Raised Beds How-To
Soil Tests

I went back through a couple of my old OGs and found articles from over 20 years ago that are on exactly the same topics. If you'd care to do some of your own research, pull the issues and do your own one-to-one comparisons. Where there are slight differences, all of the older issues are longer by at least three times (sometimes as much as ten times), more in-depth, provide leading information, connect with other things in the issue, begin at the basic beginning and follow through to the nitty-gritty multiple troubleshooting advanced level, touch other issues, have humor, compassion, personal experience, and raw warnings, and are basically wonderfully good reads. The current articles I'm reading, Scott, are dry dry dry, all the humanity edited out, apparently written for first-year newbies or dreaming inner-city DINKs, short soundbytes formed to fit perfectly between the double no foam half-caff latte and picking up the borzoi from the groomer's. They are, in short, insulting. Organic, yes, but only in terms of no pesticides no hormones no artificial anythings. They're not organic in terms of balanced, wide-ranging, local, caring, mindful, human, empathetic takes on skills or products we can integrate into our lives. Heck, the materials you use to make the magazine itself isn't even organically sound!

But wait. That probably wasn't specific enough for you. So let me lay it out.

1) Lawn Care
2) Spring greens -- Salads
3) New Tools
4) Wildflowers
5) Potatoes
6) Staking Flowers
7) Creating New Beds
8) Raised Beds How-To
9) Soil Tests

Old issue = comparable article
Sep 1980 = 3)
Jul 1966 = 5) 8) 1)(<--Ooo, look, humor!)
Nov 1965 = 7)
Oct 1980 = 5)
Nov 1980 = 2)
Apr 1980 = 4)
Feb 1980 = 6), 7), 2), and 6) again
Jan 1980 = 9)

So these are specific examples of what I'm trying to prove. Take a look at the issues cited. Examine the articles. They're longer than what you've printed -- not because they're filled with fluff, but because they're filled with more information -- the kind we've been begging for.

Here, a more specific example:

"Build a Raised Planting Bed Now For Early Spring Gardening"
Organic Gardening and Farming November 1965 P. 37
Article length: 3 PP with pictures
Subtitles: Two Ways to Build, Framework Not Necessary, Richly Fertile Soil Permits Closer Rows
EXCERPTS:
"Late Autumn is the time to build a raised garden bed for early Spring planting. You've got all the crop residues you need and your activity will be limited only by ambition -- not the weather."

"There are two ways to build a raised bed. The impatient gardener will buy a truckload or two of good topsoil from a reliable landscaping firm and deposit in some suitable spot in the garden exposed to the full sun. Then he will industriously raise the soil level to a height of at least 10 inches. If he has a compost pile, he tops off the raised bed with its rich soil and plants his seeds. Or he will plant without benefit of compost if none is available and he is extremely eager to see results.

But you can get much better results first by setting aside a load or two of soil with the help of your trusty wheelbarrow. Next, spread a narrow band -- not more than two feet wide -- of old hay, leaves, manure, straw, or other crop residues across one end of the raised bed. Then, scooping up some soil...."

These excerpts were both from the first page only of the article. It gives careful detailed how-to, with a good helping of gentle humor, personal experience, and the 'human touch'. None of which is found in the March 2004 issue's information on raised beds, touted as "an explanation of how and why to build raised beds on page 43." Amazing -- everything in the Nov 1965's article, plus all the information learned in the meantime, including angling beds along the sun's path, sloped vs framework, double-digging, planting in mulched sod, terracing along a slope, what you can line your paths with, how wide to make your paths (try as wide as your lawnmower's bite is), and everything else... has been condensed into one half-page worth of text?

I don't think so!

We want DEPTH! We want BREADTH! What are raised beds? How long have they been used? Where were they used, where should we put them? Who uses them today -- mostly backyard gardeners? -- do you use them yourself, Scott? Why are they so good? When should you put them in?

We want the HUMAN TOUCH! What mistakes have been made? What should we stay away from doing? What solutions have been tried? What's a good height for those with back problems...knee problems...wheelchairs...arthritis? What are good local products to use to mulch?

I've noticed that you have verrrrrrry carefully not writing about skills that could be picked up in a book that could otherwise be bought at the Rodale store. Well, here's a tie-in! Lasagna Gardening! Square Foot Gardening! Companion Planting -- because when you're laying out those beds, you'll need a rotation schedule for your garden, and you'd better have an idea of what plants go well together and how many can fit!

Perhaps another specific example might be a good idea, Scott. All of the articles in March 2004's issue were about stuff to buy in spring. Buy buy buy! Buy lawn care products and new tools, buy seeds for salad makings, buy different (but not local, shame on you) wildflower seeds, buy pretty -colored potatoes, and buy things to stake flowers with (don't think I didn't notice that all the 'stakes' you used were straight out of...Gardener's Supply, wasn't it? Not a word on how to make them yourself). Damn, even the articles that spaced out the ads were commercially oriented.

Here is what I'm talking about when I ask for a magazine with articles that offer connected, in-depth, carefully themed, information on a variety of subjects that may or may not be sponsored by Your Favorite Gardening Supply Catalog:

Organic Gardening and Farming, Jan 1978, Table of Contents:

Seed Roundup: Reviving the Beans of America's Past
Seed Roundup: Seed Gardening for Better Nutrition
Seed Roundup: Simple Seed Sprouting
Seed Roundup: The Easiest Seed Germinator Yet
A consumer's Guide to Winter Squash Varieties
No Stream? Grow Watercress Anyway
How to Choose New Varieties for your 1987 Garden
High-Altitude Growing in California
Tree Grafting Methods: More Trees at Less Cost
Tree Grafting Methods: The Whip-and-tongue Graft: Easy Way to More Fruit in Half the Time
Tree Grafting Methods: A Splice Graft That Works for Nut Trees Too
Tree Grafting Methods: How I Graft Pecans for Profit and Pleasure
Tree Grafting Methods: The Pecan I Kept as a Pet
Tree Grafting Methods: Bud Grafting to Make an Old-Fashioned Orchard
Growing Guide for Extra-Early Sweet Corn
Organic Oddities
A Garden of Children
Organic Living: The Flour Garden
Organic Living: Organic Living Almanac
Organic Living: Homemade Breads: Home-Ground, Homemade Whole Wheat
Organic Living: Homemade Breads: Sourdough Explained
Organic Living: Homemade Breads: Converting to Whole Grains
Organic Living: Homemade Breads: Cooking Organic Quick Breads
Organic Living: Homemade Breads: Bread from Scratch
Organic Living: Health Harvest
The Garden Honey Pot
Organizing Knowledge for Small Farmers
The 'High Voltage' Currant
Just Plow Your Problems into the Garden
Gardening School, Swiss Style
A Cold-Weather Survival Guide for Houseplants
Nature Knows what It is Doing
The 'Garden of Eatin''

The issue was HUGE! It had information on each subject for the newbie or the horny-handed Son of the Earth, the family drawing water from the well or the inner-city dreamer. It was wide, it was deep, it could hold the interest of many. This year's issues, by comparison, are narrow and shallow...and I'm tired of paying for a sauna and being able to only stick my toes in a tiny stream. Give me my money's worth, because I REALLY want to give you my money!

Scott, if those examples aren't specific enough for you, I give up hope for OG and will just ride out the rest of my subscription without even bothering. If this is the case, please donate whatever is left of my money specifically to saving seed germ plasm, testing 'new' heirloom varieties, or funding community garden plots. These things at least I can have some faith in, no matter who is digging the streambed.

> I'm not sure what kind of commitment you are looking for, aris.

I'm hoping that, after all the effort I have put into trying to explain (again) what we all have expressed as wanting to see from OG (again and again), that you can begin to understand what kind of 'commitment' I'm -- WE'RE -- all looking for. Not brighter, not flashier, not prettier. A magazine more organic -- more human, more interesting, more in-depth, more mindful, more more more! I said it before: " Everything in an organic garden should be made to do at least double duty." As far as I'm concerned -- and every other subscriber out there who is (considering) no longer subscribing -- your magazine does not have enough interesting content to while away a whole dark winter night, is not weighty enough to justify taking up shelf space, takes $24 away from the seed-buying budget, is not going to be referenced in the future, nor can it be composted. So it's not pulling its weight. I know that you've made changes. But you were handed fresh manure, and you're trying to hand it back to us on a larger plate. Compost it! Put it in your soil! Plant in it! Harvest it, and sell the bounty! We don't want execrably topical tiny tidbits, we want gloriously full-flavored fragrant fun fecundity! Please, Scott, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make Organic Gardening into a magazine I want to give my very hard-earned money to.

Please.

I thought they were asking for our opinion?

AMEN, Aris!

You have made very clear, aris, what you want: OG should be the magazine it was 20-30 years ago. That isn't what I believe the majority of our readers (and prospective readers) want from us now. So if you are hoping that to convince me to make a commitment to make OG like it was back then, I'll tell you bluntly that isn't my plan.

I won't respond to every point in your last post that I disagree with, but I will address one of them so all who read this thread can judge the facts and your assertions for themselves.

About the staking article in the March issue, you state "don't think I didn't notice that all the 'stakes' you used were straight out of...Gardener's Supply, wasn't it? Not a word on how to make them yourself." Look again. On the first page, we recommend pea brush as the best way to hold up mounding plants and we recommend bamboo poles and string for plants like daisies and chrysanthemums. How much more homemade could these be? Further, turn to page 38. There we researched and came up with fresh information about how to care for perennials (I recalled a thread about this very subject here last year and we tried to answer the questions that came up). We also gave two Do-Nothing Solutions. What is the commercial-orientation of this page?

I can only conclude from this that you object to the package in which we present the info and dismiss the content without looking at it fairly. I believe that organic gardeners will enjoy well-researched, useful information thats easy to find and lovely to look at.


Each of you will be able to decide for yourself whether the magazine serves your needs and interests. And I'll know how I'm doing by watching our renewal rates. Fair enough?

Scott

Scott, I was just curious. The magazine 20 years ago was Organic gardening AND FARMING. The Magazine I first got...oh, about ten years ago...was just Organic Gardening. Is there a sister publication for Organic farming? I know that organic farming has gotten less fringe and more in the mainstream lately, and was wondering if it was just too much to keep up in one magazine, what with all the new biodynamic and permaculture studies and methods being produced and studied.

Scott,

Thanks for taking the time to do your research.

Let me say that pointing out the mistake I made through overstatement in seven full pages of 'specific examples', as you asked for, does not invalidate my point. Nor am I the only person that believes that today's OG is skimpy, and that our repeated requests for this problem to be addressed have been ignored. I just happen to be the most vociferous -- and therefore you are replying to me, not to any of the other similar comments to the same effect. But not ignoring them does not make the sentiment go away.

You are, of course, free to take the magazine in whatever direction you deem best. However, in polling my friends and reading the replies here on the Net about your most recent issues, none of them have said anything but "it's a little thin; I was hoping for more". Let me rephrase: if you "believe that organic gardeners will enjoy well-researched, useful information thats easy to find and lovely to look at", and this applies to your current issues, then you are talking to a whole different group of people.

Good luck, Scott.

When I received my new issue of Organic gardening, I was glad to see that there were more pages. It has imroved slightly from last year, but has so very far to go.

I have to agree with pretty much everything Aris said.

I really miss the magazine I first subscribed to back in the late 80's. I realize things can't always stay the same, but do they have to stay SO far from a good thing?

Hi Scott,
I haven't been a customer long-I can't do a fair comparison but I do enjoy reading what is there.
When our family started homeschooling(bear with me here), people shared information on how to provide a good quality education at little or no cost. Now any publications and the internet as well seem to be full of ways to spend money on homeschooling - the advertisers want you to believe that they have just what you need to solve your education problems and you can't do without their product(for a modest cost ahem).
With organic
gardening taking on new interest, it seems I get that same feeling of "I better get this stuff or I can't garden without it". I live on an extremely,pathetic, low budget. Because of serious diet concerns for our family, I MUST do organic gardening to provide the food they need. Sorry to be long winded but I would appreciate if the magazine were to continue offering as many self-sufficient, economical, alternatives to purchasing items as possible.

Well, starting a shit storm was not my intention. I merely chose the wrong forum to vent my frustration. I do have to agree with some of the opinions about the mag. Some of the articles are skimpy. However, when it comes to any form of hands on type of instruction, such as gardening or mechanical work, illustrations are essentional. When I began doing my own mechanical work over 25 years ago, the only manuals were all text. I learned hard and exspensive. Todays' manuals have illustrations showing all the variations and components for beginners. What a difference a picture makes! When I'm reading about gardening , I want to see photos! I want to see what they are talking about. Pictures tell alot and sometimes they're not enough. They're also a motivater. They let you dream about what you are going to grow next season. As far as ads go, who cares? Advertisement is what pays most of the media we are exposed to today. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I will skim them and stop at what suits me. I like to look at any ad that promotes self suffuciency. How about the ram pump that uses only falling water? Ever heard of it? It was invented over 100 hundred years ago and is still sold today. That comes out of PF. My point is that we all want OG mag to be more than it is. As I said in earlier posts, this forum has made me a better gardener. I want to thank everyone here for that.

I'd like replies from the G2G folks out there. I will be taking action based on this thread, and would like to hear from folks. Is it just me, or have all of our requests for more meaty information in OG issues over the past year pretty much consistantly fallen on deaf ears?

I got frustrated this month, and stopped being vague...replied with the requested 'specific examples'...and got my hands slapped for it. Was that because I was wrong, because I should continue being patient through another $24.95 year while nearly nothing changes, or did I get slapped because my points were true, and the mgm't didn't want to have to address them? Or is there another reason that I'm not seeing? Was it my tone? I cannot believe that the ever-pacific Scott Meyer could be provoked through [u]tone[/u] into pointing out the one exaggeration in a forty-five point, seven-page post with slit-eyed gleeful vindication.

Heck, I'm glad he replied at all -- all his other comments to the same complaints have been 'we're getting better just wait we're working on it thank you so much for you input' over and over and over cut-and-paste same reply different month. (Side note: Deja-Moo: the feeling you've heard this manure before) Another instance of being brushed off like me and my money aren't worth listening to, and I would have bitten someone and given them rabies. I guess I should be glad that the irritating tone actually got a real response...but somehow, I still got a brush-off, combined with a remonstrance! Amazing!

So why do ya'all think I got slapped?

I've been a subscriber to Organic Gardening off and on since the 1970's and, yes, there have been some changes since J. I. was editor and for a while when a big mistakes was made in the choice of the Editor and the magazine was more about life style than gardening it was not interesting. Trying to write and publish a magazine that will be of interest to those people just getting started gardening and those who have been with it for quite a while is a big challenge. With Scott as editor the magazine is getting better, not quite as good as it was with J. I. but better than when whats her name was.
Keep in mind that writting articles that will interest those of us that have been gardening for 30 plus years and piqueing the interest of someone just starting is difficult, but I always learn something from every article. I don't always necessarily agree with what the writer says, but I always learn and that is what the magazine is for.