Remove Burlap When Planting?
Griffin
I am new to gardening, and very inexperienced. I just bought an Andromeda
bush, the root ball is in a burlap sack. Should I remove it when planting?
Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance, Ed
Paul Onstad
root ball. OTOH, I didn't follow such advice on one occasion (with a rose in
a peat pot) and it did just fine.
-Paul
David J. Bockman
IMHO, the genreal concensus is to *not* remove the burlap, *unless* it is
synthetic fiber.
--
David J. Bockman, Fairfax, VA (USDA Hardiness Zone 7)
Bunabayashi Bonsai On The World Wide Web: http://www.bunabayashi.com
email: d...@bunabayashi.com
Paul Onstad <pon...@sihope.com> wrote in message
news:3B05A573...@sihope.com...
Pam
"David J. Bockman" wrote:
> Paul,
>
> IMHO, the genreal concensus is to *not* remove the burlap, *unless* it is
> synthetic fiber.
Beg to differ, David. The consensus in the PNW among nurserymen and
professional landscapers *is* to remove the burlap, at least from the top and
sides of the rootball, with as little disturbance to rootball as possible.
Perhaps because of our moist weather, most burlap is treated with a chemical
preservative to keep it from decomposing too fast. Sometimes it is obvious by
the color, but often it is not. Better to err on the side of caution and
remove..........far less chance of rootball disturbance if one is careful than
root girdling because of constriction by fabric.
Pam - gardengal
PNW zone 8
David J. Bockman
My high school summer job was b&b'ing field grown trees for Campbell &
Ferrara, as well as landscape installation. I have installed hundreds if not
thousands of trees. The most I ever did was untie at the top and cut any
cordage wrapped around the trunk bole. Larger trees which had nylon webbing
as cordage had the nylon totally removed, but the burlap always stayed.
I learned installation from some of the finest nurserymen in the trade, and
none of them ever removed the burlap from a b&b tree. It just doesn't make
sense to, regardless of the rootball's condition.
In my experience (10+ years in the trade) untreated burlap will totally
break down in about two months, treated burlap in about 6.
--
David J. Bockman, Fairfax, VA (USDA Hardiness Zone 7)
Bunabayashi Bonsai On The World Wide Web: http://www.bunabayashi.com
email: d...@bunabayashi.com
Pam <grdn...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B05BA47...@home.com...
Pam
"David J. Bockman" wrote:
>
>
> In my experience (10+ years in the trade) untreated burlap will totally
> break down in about two months, treated burlap in about 6.
We would be doomed in the nursery biz if that were so. B&B product is frequently
in stock for periods in excess of 6 months, never mind the 2 months if wrapped
in untreated burlap. Can you imagine how much work it would be should we have to
re-wrap all that b&b product every few months as the burlap decomposes?
I can't tell you how many times I have been called to job site to diagnose the
failure of a tree. At least 33% of the time it is due to improper planting,
primarily the failure to remove cording and wrapping, with another full third
due to improper watering.
I also a little confused by your statement that you learned installation from
nurserymen. In my area, it is the landscape contractors that provide the
installation and most (well, many) are more concerned with time than the proper
planting techniques - the more trees you can plant in the shortest amount of
time, the more money you can make - forget taking any extra time to remove
wrappings. The nurserymen here who sell the tree and guarantee their product are
very concerned that proper planting techniques are used - we provide written
instructions to customers on how to plant trees and clearly outline, at the very
least, peeling back all wrappings to allow unobstructed root run. That method is
upheld by the Washington State Nursery and Landscape Association who are
responsible for the nursery and landscaper certification program.
Pam - gardengal
greg presley
molds and fungi, in the soil. Warmer, wetter regions have so many more of
these that decay of objects in the soil is the norm. When I lived in north
Florida, I could rake leaves in 1 foot high piles all around the bases of my
trees during the winter, and by the middle of May, every bit of those leaves
had disappeared. Here in the inland Northwest, with rainfall of less than 20
inches a year, and average humidity of less than 50% (and much less than
that in summer), those same piles of leaves would be around 10 years from
now, perhaps shrunken by 1 inch!!) So we routinely remove burlap, because
there is not a prayer in hell that it will ever decay in our soil and
climate. It is not uncommon to find roots from long-dead trees in the
ground when digging in the garden. (I'm talking dead for 10 years or more).
Greg
David J. Bockman
frequently
> in stock for periods in excess of 6 months, never mind the 2 months if
wrapped
> in untreated burlap. Can you imagine how much work it would be should we
have to
> re-wrap all that b&b product every few months as the burlap decomposes?
I'm talking about in the ground, planted, Pam.
--
David J. Bockman, Fairfax, VA (USDA Hardiness Zone 7)
Bunabayashi Bonsai On The World Wide Web: http://www.bunabayashi.com
email: d...@bunabayashi.com
Pam <grdn...@home.com> wrote in message news:3B05D054...@home.com...
>
>
> "David J. Bockman" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In my experience (10+ years in the trade) untreated burlap will totally
> > break down in about two months, treated burlap in about 6.
>
>
Ann
>> We would be doomed in the nursery biz if that were so. B&B product is
>frequently
>> in stock for periods in excess of 6 months, never mind the 2 months if
>wrapped
>> in untreated burlap. Can you imagine how much work it would be should we
>have to
>> re-wrap all that b&b product every few months as the burlap decomposes?
>
>I'm talking about in the ground, planted, Pam.
I understood what you meant, David, but what I can't understand is why
not take the burlap off from everywhere but the bottom? All it takes
is a zip knife and a couple seconds. Then there's *no* chance of tree
roots not being able to expand properly from the first moment of
planting, the success or failure of the tree won't be dependent at all
on the presence of burlap.
--
Ann, Gardening in Zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************
BeeCrofter
When you plant it and water it in well the day of planting and the second day
also you will remove any air pockets.
The labor considerations of removing burlap from one tree are insignificant.
If you are planting 1000 trees it might make a difference to your bottom line.
But the check would have cleared before the tree died.
paghat
trees are over 20 feet tall!) some with enormous rootballs. My main source
of decorative trees has been a tree-oriented nursery that guarantees their
trees for the first year & will replace anything that dies.
They void guarantees if burlap is removed from rootballs. When I asked
about this they said the most common cause of failure for trees is air in
the rootball, where fungus & rot can start. If the burlap is removed it
increases the likelihood of the soil cracking & letting in air before the
tree has laid down further roots & really established itself. The bag rots
quickly, the roots can poke through it rotted or not, the burlap is not in
the way. They do, however, require that the burlap be untied at the top &
unwrapped to the widest part of the top of the ball.
If their advice were no good, it seems to me, they'd end up giving a lot
more replacement trees or refunds than would be profitable. They're fairly
adamant that the majority of failed trees had the burlap removed. I've
just followed these peoples' advice, & everything I've gotten from them in
the last two years just does wonderfully. I've gotten a lot of stupid
advice from varioius nurseries, but at this one place they really seem to
know their stuff.
I see from the several opinions expressed here that this is the minority
opinion but all I can say is that The Country Nursery near Bremerton
specializes in trees, backs their advice with a full refund or replacement
if something goes awry, & have provided me with nothing but the healthiest
most wonderful trees.
-paghat the ratgirl
David J. Bockman
insignificant.
> If you are planting 1000 trees it might make a difference to your bottom
line.
> But the check would have cleared before the tree died.
>
Just what the HELL is that supposed to mean?
Hey folks, I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not you heed advice
from me when it's solicited in this forum. I'm simply replying with my own
experiences, and I only do so when I feel said experience would be helpful
to others.
To amalgamate some of the questions posed to me, including the accusatory
ones implying I was merely part of a business that cut corners when planting
to save money, always at the expense of the tree's health and the customer's
good faith:
Campbell & Ferrara was at one time vertically merchandised, with several
large grow fields on the Eastern Shore. When I write 'large', I mean tens of
thousands of trees spread over hundreds of acres of land. As a teenager my
summer job was digging out, 'b&b'ing' trees anywhere from two feet to thirty
feet tall. I worked with a crew of men of varying degrees of education and
experience, but the ones who had been doing this kind of work for decades
knew the most and it's from them I learned how to and how NOT to transplant
trees, as well as install them in the landscape.
Pam questioned my knowledge in this semi-skilled area as well, positing that
landscape contractors know far more about how to plant a tree than a
nurseryman. That's a gratuitous assertion, an opinion backed up by zero
evidence. Contractors know how to plant trees-- it's not rocket science,
after all. So do nurserymen who also employ landscape crews to install trees
and shrubs purchased from their stock. That's where my experience comes
from. I suggest that nursery crews plant with *more* care and knowledge than
a contractor, as it is the nursery's own stock that is being installed, and
from said stock relacements must be pulled if the tree dies. If I were to
shoddily plant a tree, and that tree dies, guess what happens? The customer
complains, and the work logs are pulled to see who was working the job. The
owner or manager goes to the job and sees how the tree was planted, and of
course I would be summarily chewed out or fired. Guys did get fired when
stock died and the subsequent investigation revealed poor planting practices
(high planted, no amendments, hole inadquately wide to allow for good
rootball to soil contact, etc.) I am not in that demographic. My workmate
Phil and I were jokingly referred to variously as 'The Picasso of Planting'
and 'The Mondrian of Mulch'. :o)
Take a drive around any burgeoning suburb and see how the large landscape
crews treat the stock. Not a day goes by that I don't see boulevard trees
laying about above ground, sitting on their sides, being rolled about as
construction takes place around them, sometimes for days or weeks without
water until the crews get around to planting them. Then, they tie that tree
down from three or four points, guy-wiring it with zero play. Sometimes bits
of garden hose protect the bark, sometimes not. They then heap mulch in an
enormous pile around and onto the trunk, burning the bark and inviting rot
and disease in the process. They then drown the tree with gallons of water
and then they leave, never to return.
Every tree, I mean every single tree, I ever planted was planted correctly
and with as much care as possible, time clock be damned. There was never
pressure put on me to finish a job quickly or to plant in a shoddy manner so
we could get the hell out of there and sprint to the bank, customer's check
in hand. The foremen knew how long it should take to plant any sized tree
and budgeted our time and man-power accordingly. Unseen obstacles
underground? Hardpan, silt, rocks, cable tv wire? Then more men were brought
over from other jobs that were going more quickly than the time budgeted.
If I had a tree to be installed that was 'loose in the ball', I damn sure
wouldn't remove or cut the burlap in any way, because the burlap is what's
holding the root system together. Of course I would cut and remove any
synthetic material.
If I had a tree with a superb, firm rootball, I would probably untie the top
and of course cut and remove any synthetic material.
I have never encountered nor used synthetic burlap.
Cages were left in place.
If for some reason I felt the burlap was an especialy heavy weight or dense
weave, I probably would make some cuts and remove or open it up as much as
possible.
I'll sum up in my own defense by relating a recent transplant. The City of
Fairfax recently contacted me to transplant several Juniperus chinensis from
the Blenheim Estate, a Civil War era mansion in the city. These trees are
hundreds of years old and are of signifigant historic value as well as
commercial value based on their size and age (trunks about 16" in diameter,
trees about eight to ten feet tall.)
All are doing fine, having been dug up, b&b'ed, and replanted by me. So,
*phttttttttppppt!*
Ok, off soapbox,
Q
(paghat) wrote:
>This year & last, I've put in several new trees & bushes (two of the "new"
>trees are over 20 feet tall!)
What kind of trees, please? Are they hybrids?
Q
Pooky
just slashed the burlap in a few places and then planted the trees. I'm not
an expert, but it seems a decent way to do it. The burlap is still there to
'protect' the root bal, but it won't confine the roots.
On the other hand, I've dug up a few old burlap feed bags when I was living
there, and I know they weren't ours. So they had to be more than two years
old, buried. They were not completely decomposed at all. Just burying
something is not the same as composting, I'm sure.
--
~Pooky~
Put the cat out to reply by e-mail. ;^)
http://moonkatz.tripod.com/index.htm
Griffin <gri...@ids.net> wrote in message
news:tgb678i...@corp.supernews.com...
: Hi,
:
:
Lhemlock
professional!). In this time, I've pulled out any number of plants that have
died and found that the planter had left all the burlap on - no cuts, nothing.
Whether or not this contributed to the plants' deaths was not an issue for me.
My observations have been that the rootballs have been bone-dry where more than
one thickness of natural burlap existed, whereas, the rootballs where only one
thickness of burlap existed were moist and the burlap had deteriorated and/or
had begun to deteriorate. Be on the safe side - remove all ropes and natural
burlap from the top of the rootball. Nylon burlap does not rot and must be
completely removed, which, exposes the rootball to the possibility of breakage
- a certain death sentence.
paghat
lhem...@aol.com (Lhemlock) wrote:
That's the advice I got from the folks at Country Nursery who specialize
in bushes & trees. They came out & helped me plant a couple of the bigger
things that no way I could even budge on my own, & they removed all ropes,
pealed back the burlap to the rim of the top-edges, & left the rest of the
burlap intact so that the ball will have no cracks to allow air in. Since
watching them do it that way I've never done it any other way, though now
& then someone tells me it's wrong.
Advice found on UseNet has always to be taken with a grain of salt --
advice anywhere really -- but yours jives with what I've been able to
absorb the last measily two years that I've had big gardens to work in &
extend (shrubs & trees being my primary focus, followed by groundcovers.
My partner is doing the little flowerier things). For a lark I just now
did a google search with the keywords "rootball burlap planting" to see
what kind of advice might be scattered around the web, & what you've just
noted, & what the Country Nursery folks near me said, is found many places
-- which I think might turn around some of the thinking in this thread,
that burlap is evil & should be taken off. Some quotes from various
websites:
Kim Powell, Extension Horticultural Specialist, Department of
Horticultural Science, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, at
North Carolina State University, advises folding the top of the burlap
back & removing only the strings: "The most important consideration in
planting trees and shrubs is the planting depth. Don't plant too deep. It
is better to plant in a raised manner so the roots will not drown or
suffocate. Dig planting holes 2 to 3 times wider than the rootball and the
same depth. Locate the rootball on solid soil and not loose backfill. Wire
baskets do not need to be completely removed from large field grown trees.
Cut and fold down the top half of the basket, fold back the burlap, and
remove nylon strings. Be sure to remove plastic liners or synthetic burlap
type materials."
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-601.html
Among other good transplant advice found at a commercial website:
"The burlap's bio-degradable so you can actually leave it on after
planting. Just pull it back and down the sides so it doesn't wick moisture
away from the ball."
http://www.hometime.com/projects/howto/lawngrdn/pc2lgpla.htm
Deborah C. Swanson, her article reprinted on the web from The Journal of
The Society of Municipal Arborists, suggests removing only the VISIBLE
burlap at the surface once the plant is in place, though her wording is a
little unclear & she might be advising that the burlap down the sides
inside the hole can be removed before filling; but she adds that if the
rootball is at all in danger of cracking, remove only the top third of the
burlap (she's a distinct minority of experts suggesting even that much be
removed rather than just removed from the surface):
"Carefully set the plant in the hole so that the trunk flare is at, or 1" to 2"
above the existing grade. Once the plant is properly placed, cut away and
remove all visible rope and burlap. If the rootball appears in danger
of completely collapsing, remove the rope and burlap from only
the top third of the ball."
http://www.urban-forestry.com/citytrees/v35n5a03.html
Weston Nursery, around since 1923 their website boasts, quotes Deborah
Swanson verbatim, so seem to be taking their expertise from the web rather
than from their decades of nursery experience:
http://www.westonnurseries.com/PlntGdln/PlntGdln.htm
Bob Crawford, Commissioner, Division of Forestry (Florida), says to leave
fully two-thirds of the burlap on the ball:
"All synthetic or non-degradable material such as nylon rope or treated
burlap should be removed from the rootball prior to planting. All wrapping
material should be removed from the upper 1/3 of the rootball. Precautions
should be taken to prevent any of the remaining pieces of wrapping from
extending above the soil where they can act as wick and dry the soil."
http://www.floridaplants.com/trees/forestry.htm
I checked about six more sites & all said things like "peel back the top
portion of the burlap" and leave the reset. One site only (Muncie Urban
Forester website) said point-blank "remove the burlap" entirely before
going in the hole -- no author was credited & the advice just seems to be
wrong, & of the sites I checked at random, the only one of ten to suggest
removing the burlap should be done. Many gardening issues are debatable
but this one seems as close to definite as things get: remove all
artificial material, & the twine, but leave two-thirds of the burlap,
taking off or folding back only that which is on the surface. I'm rather
glad this topic came up & induced me to double-check, as I'm new enough at
all this I could well have gotten into the wrong habit, & glad to find
those Country Nursery guys do give good advice like I thought they did.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> Exactly. Thus, it is recommended to remove the burlap after the tree is in the
> hole. Cut it off, leaving the root ball complete, unbroken, and the bottom
> burlap can stay.
>
> V
And then when you tamp the soil tight with your foot, you also crack the
ball & risk losing the whole tree as a result. Leave the burlap on the
SIDES and bottom. Remove from the top only. As is done by at least nine
out of ten professionals. It's not worth your having flamed people over it
even if you elect not to believe it's the way to go about it.
-paghat the ratgirl
> *****
> "I would have to ask the questioner. I haven't had a chance
> to ask the questioners the question they've been questioning."
>
> - G. Dubya Bush, Jan 8, 2001.
> *****
T Jaszewski
(paghat) wrote:
>And then when you tamp the soil tight with your foot, you also crack the
>ball & risk losing the whole tree as a result. Leave the burlap on the
>SIDES and bottom. Remove from the top only. As is done by at least nine
>out of ten professionals. It's not worth your having flamed people over it
>even if you elect not to believe it's the way to go about it.
>
>-paghat the ratgirl
>
>>
"If you have a B&B tree, now is the time to cut away any strings from
around the trunk and to fold back the top 1/3 of the burlap down into
the planting hole."
this is a quote from a vast majority of city and Certified Arborists.
"I have great faith in fools. My friends call it self-confidence. "
e a poe
RamblinOn
paghat wrote:
> In article <08sdgt0sqfegq8f9i...@4ax.com>,
> ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
>
> > Exactly. Thus, it is recommended to remove the burlap after the tree is in the
> > hole. Cut it off, leaving the root ball complete, unbroken, and the bottom
> > burlap can stay.
> >
> > V
>
> And then when you tamp the soil tight with your foot, you also crack the
> ball & risk losing the whole tree as a result. Leave the burlap on the
> SIDES and bottom. Remove from the top only. As is done by at least nine
> out of ten professionals. It's not worth your having flamed people over it
> even if you elect not to believe it's the way to go about it.
>
I've read only a few of the posts to this thread, but I can't understand the reason
for treating the root ball with such delicacy. I've planted a zillion plants, only
a couple of very small trees, many shrubs, and I always break the root ball - I tear
it two ways. I have a neighbor's trees on the property line which have roots
growing in a circle around themselves. I fail to see the reasoning in leaving the
root ball wrapped in anything - if things tended to be a bit dry, the plant would
need to send down deeper roots and the burlap would be slower to decompose. I,
personally, wouldn't leave roots wrapped in anything and thought - I have read many
times - that breaking the roots encourages more rapid root growth/branching.
T Jaszewski
<Ramb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I've read only a few of the posts to this thread, but I can't understand the reason
>for treating the root ball with such delicacy. I've planted a zillion plants, only
>a couple of very small trees, many shrubs, and I always break the root ball - I tear
>it two ways. I have a neighbor's trees on the property line which have roots
>growing in a circle around themselves. I fail to see the reasoning in leaving the
>root ball wrapped in anything - if things tended to be a bit dry, the plant would
>need to send down deeper roots and the burlap would be slower to decompose. I,
>personally, wouldn't leave roots wrapped in anything and thought - I have read many
>times - that breaking the roots encourages more rapid root growth/branching.
B & B i have seen are pretty harshly dug....not at all like growing
in a container.
"The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'"
John F. Kennedy
Ann
>And then when you tamp the soil tight with your foot, you also crack the
>ball & risk losing the whole tree as a result. Leave the burlap on the
>SIDES and bottom. Remove from the top only. As is done by at least nine
>out of ten professionals. It's not worth your having flamed people over it
>even if you elect not to believe it's the way to go about it.
9 our of 10 of your professionals. My professionals say remove what
you can. There are other ways of settling the soil besides tamping
the soil tight with your foot.
paghat
<Ramb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
To quote M.A. Powell of Department of Horticultural Science, North
Carolina State University:
"Horticulture researchers have estimated that 75% of the roots may be lost
when digging field-grown nursery stock. Cultural practices by the
nurseryman, such as root pruning, irrigation, fertilization, root-ball
configuration, and digging techniques, influence the percentage of
harvested roots. Water stress, due to removal of most of the
water-absorbing roots, is the primary cause of transplant failure. Most
water absorption capability within a transplanted root-ball results from
very small diameter roots. These fragile roots are the first to suffer
from excess water loss in newly transplanted landscape plants."
From this you might suppose different outcomes for bareroot transplants,
for B&B, or for trees swiftly transplanted from one place to another
without ever being "groomed" for market. The professional methods outlined
in this thread are the best by wide agreement. I'm sure somewhere there is
someone who sets their trees on fire before planting them & swears by
setting them on fire because all his have done well. That you have broken
balls to pieces & not induced rot is just dumb luck. We all have a little
of that or our gardens would turn to crap in no time.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
<ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) expounded:
>
> >And then when you tamp the soil tight with your foot, you also crack the
> >ball & risk losing the whole tree as a result. Leave the burlap on the
> >SIDES and bottom. Remove from the top only. As is done by at least nine
> >out of ten professionals. It's not worth your having flamed people over it
> >even if you elect not to believe it's the way to go about it.
>
> 9 our of 10 of your professionals. My professionals say remove what
> you can. There are other ways of settling the soil besides tamping
> the soil tight with your foot.
Cite the professionals. I checked ten, found one anonymous source that
says to do it your way; I cited four who were named & could've cited all
nine of ten. They're not "my" professionals; those I cited included
leading horticulturists with national reputations. You may have your
personal professionals as you state, but I have none, but I have named
sources & still waiting for you to name anyone of repute who who is
willing to put their professional reputation on the the the statement
"remove all the burlap." I seriously doubt you can find even one who isn't
just your aunt's hairdresser's boyfriend's dogwalker who raises pansies.
But if I'm wrong, do provide "your" professional citations & I will
certainly peruse them with great care.
-paghat the ratgirl
Falcon
wrote:
>I used to raise entire greenhouses full of them every year...along with MILLIONS of
>other plants, on millions of square feet under glass.
I do have to ask, how did you manage to keep a million square feet of
glass clean? Your Windex supplier must be a MILLIONAIRE.
Ciao,
Falcon
####################################################
#### To reply via email remove "7" from address ####
####################################################
# Failure is not an option #
# It comes bundled with the software #
####################################################
Pam
"David J. Bockman" wrote:
> Pam questioned my knowledge in this semi-skilled area as well, positing that
> landscape contractors know far more about how to plant a tree than a
> nurseryman. That's a gratuitous assertion, an opinion backed up by zero
> evidence. Contractors know how to plant trees-- it's not rocket science,
> after all. So do nurserymen who also employ landscape crews to install trees
> and shrubs purchased from their stock. That's where my experience comes
> from. I suggest that nursery crews plant with *more* care and knowledge than
> a contractor, as it is the nursery's own stock that is being installed, and
> from said stock relacements must be pulled if the tree dies. If I were to
> shoddily plant a tree, and that tree dies, guess what happens? The customer
> complains, and the work logs are pulled to see who was working the job. The
> owner or manager goes to the job and sees how the tree was planted, and of
> course I would be summarily chewed out or fired. Guys did get fired when
> stock died and the subsequent investigation revealed poor planting practices
> (high planted, no amendments, hole inadquately wide to allow for good
> rootball to soil contact, etc.) I am not in that demographic. My workmate
> Phil and I were jokingly referred to variously as 'The Picasso of Planting'
> and 'The Mondrian of Mulch'. :o)
Hold on. Back the truck up. If you re-read my comments, you will see I said I
was 'confused by your statement that you learned installation from nurserymen'.
I did NOT say landscape contractors knew more about planting a tree than
nurserymen. In fact I implied something more or less the opposite. What I was
hoping for with that statement was more of an explanation - in my area,
nurserymen are not really involved in plant installation - they sell plants to
those who are. That you should have learned at the hands of a nurseryman rather
than a contractor was puzzling. Apparently, your nurseries operate differently
from ours - nurseries here don't do landscaping. They sell plants and stuff for
plants. Oh, they may do some planting of specimen trees to ensure quality
control for their guarantees, but that's about it.
I believe we might be saying the same thing, but from opposing sides. If I
understand you correctly, you say that nurserymen, in general, plant with more
knowledge and care than a landscaper. I agree. We guarantee our plants,
therefore we want to be sure they are planted correctly. You report personal
observations of landscape contractors involved in improper planting practices
due to time or financial constraints. So have I. Where we disagree is that
accepted procedure for correct planting in my area is to remove the wrappings -
yours is the opposite.
So practices may vary by area. In this area, production nurseries grow their
crops in heavy clay. For one thing, its very common, and another, it makes
digging b&b stock very simple - most of it is done by machine - and the rootball
will hold together solidly as long as moist. From our experience in this
climate, burlap does not breakdown fast enough for us to be comfortable that
trees will be able to develop unobstructed root runs. The result is, we
recommend removal.
No need to get fluffed. I was not calling into question your skills in planting,
merely attempting to explain why a method opposite of what you practice is
supported in my area.
Pam
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:43:48 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com
(paghat) wrote:
>
>
> >Cite the professionals. I checked ten, found one anonymous source that
> >says to do it your way; I cited four who were named & could've cited all
> >nine of ten. They're not "my" professionals; those I cited included
> >leading horticulturists with national reputations. You may have your
> >personal professionals as you state, but I have none, but I have named
> >sources & still waiting for you to name anyone of repute who who is
> >willing to put their professional reputation on the the the statement
> >"remove all the burlap." I seriously doubt you can find even one who isn't
> >just your aunt's hairdresser's boyfriend's dogwalker who raises pansies.
> >But if I'm wrong, do provide "your" professional citations & I will
> >certainly peruse them with great care.
> >
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
> There are, oh, about 10 professionals right here, to name just a few, who
> keep up reading all the trade magazines and newspapers, and who are not
> dinosaurs which wrote articles about this 30 years ago.
> Many of us are not just pansy dogwalkers, though I used
> to raise entire greenhouses full of them every year...along with MILLIONS of
> other plants, on millions of square feet under glass. So, if your only
> professional citations are going to be from land grant universities which
> usually have old men running the research divisions... I can think of
far more
> important things to spend all this energy on.
You seem to define "naming a few" as "naming none." But even if you HAD
called forth a cadre of UseNutters making idle claims for themselves, I
think if it does come down to a choice of trusting ten UseNutters (or one
anyway) in a pique, & ten "old men" (middle aged women mostly as point of
fact) in the leading horticultural institutes in America, on this
particular issue I'll trust the published horticulturists like Kim Powell
whose scientifically regulated gardens at North Carolina State University
Department of Horticultural Science provide controlled study outcomes, not
My Grampa Dumped Fishheads In A Hole And That Worked Right Well personal
anecdotes. These folks who pretty much uniformly disagree with you on this
are writing the articles your buddies are "keeping up with" for crine out
loud (Deborah C. Swanson's article which I'd quoted on this subject
appeared last year in The Journal of The Society of Municipal Arborists --
so your supposition that these folks are old men who published their
opinions 30 years ago seems to have happened in an alternative universe.
Personally I don't know what sex Kim is, am pretty sure Deborah's not a
man however, & both could be young or middle aged for all I know -- that
you would despise their learned opinions because you imagine they're old &
they're men & they're academics says a lot about you & nothing whatsoever
about gardening). And if you are reduced to calling those who are active
in the leading horticultural institutes in America old man dinosaurs who
don't know shit compared to a UseNutter, well hey, that's not making a
rational point in the least, that's just getting pissed off & insulting
your betters.
Now I've no doubt whatsoever that you know a great deal about gardening &
I would certainly weigh seriously any advice you offered, though I would
check & doublecheck most anyone before I absorbed too much as absolute,
ESPECIALLY on UseNet where any ol' geek geezer gimp goy or kazoo master
can make any assertion they please, & just EVERYone purports to be expert
on everything from gallbladder surgery to alien abduction to perpetual
motion machines kept from us by the evil oil giants. And what you seem to
be doing in the present case is the classic "doth protest too much" sort
of thing -- like when someone who just killed their baby due to an easily
avoided accident will never, unto death, admit it was avoidable, & will
get peevish as all hell when anyone outlines how not to kill their next
baby too. Personally I don't need to claim expertise; I weigh opinions
from sources academic, pop, local nurserymen, the local garden club, even
Usenet, & not surprised when there is no concensus on many a topic &
radical differences of opinion. Hell, today someone from the garden club
told me lady bugs don't eat aphids -- & that fellow & his wife have run a
tree-farm for thirty years very successfully & are nevertheless complete
dopes about everything & die-hards in favor of chemical-everything. But
for the present subject the only folks not part of a concensus seem to
have only poorly founded personal anecdote, disdain for horticultural
scholars, & vague allusions to nameless experts, to back a gut feeling
that left is right. And I find that very entertaining in & of itself,
though not illuminating in any gardening way.
-paghat the ratgirl
David J. Bockman
news:5vfegtc01ojsjvoir...@4ax.com...
" There are people on this newsgroup who are actively working in
horticulture, who keep up reading all the trade magazines and newspapers,
and who are not dinosaurs which[sic] wrote articles about this 30 years
ago... So, if your only professional citations are going to be from land
grant universities which usually have old men running the research
divisions..."
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum. ~~ Noam Chomsky
Ann
>Cite the professionals.
I don't play that game. I have many friends in the industry, people
who are actually planting trees in our area. All but one or two do it
while removing as much of the burlap as they can, the two that don't,
I wouldn't want planting trees in my area anyways.
I don't go with what I read on Usenet (including what you write). I
go with current knowledge shared between real people. I go with
experience. So go right ahead and claim Usenet superiority. I'll
continue to plant trees the way I always have, and succeed at that.
paghat
<djb_m...@bunabayashi.com.invalid> wrote:
> victoria <ani...@animaux.net0> wrote in message
> news:5vfegtc01ojsjvoir...@4ax.com...
>
> " There are people on this newsgroup who are actively working in
> horticulture, who keep up reading all the trade magazines and newspapers,
> and who are not dinosaurs which[sic] wrote articles about this 30 years
> ago... So, if your only professional citations are going to be from land
> grant universities which usually have old men running the research
> divisions..."
>
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
> spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
> spectrum. ~~ Noam Chomsky
>
> --
> David J. Bockman, Fairfax, VA
Hey! Stop quoting dumbass dinosaurs!
-paghat the lefty too
paghat
<ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) expounded:
>
> >Cite the professionals.
>
> I don't play that game.
Your credibility is going from moderate to none.
-paghat
RamblinOn
Ann wrote:
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) expounded:
>
> >Cite the professionals.
>
> I don't play that game. I have many friends in the industry, people
> who are actually planting trees in our area. All but one or two do it
> while removing as much of the burlap as they can, the two that don't,
> I wouldn't want planting trees in my area anyways.
>
> I don't go with what I read on Usenet (including what you write). I
> go with current knowledge shared between real people.
Who/what has populated Usenet? Martians?
Ann
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> All knowing...ya.
Y'all GOTTA come up with better arguments. When you claim to be sharing
personal expertise shared by many experts, experts who read many
up-to-date articles, but then no one will play the "game" of citing who
these experts are & where these articles are published, then y'all begin
to look like you're just lying because you didn't have a sound argument to
begin with & got a bit hysterical.
I do not claim magical expertise & did cite leading horticulturists by
name & article. You are saying in essence, "If I write it on UseNet, I'm
an expert, all my friends are experts." One posting was so internally
nonsensical as to allege experience based on reading articles but in the
same post demeaned the authors of such articles as old men in land-grant
universities who couldn't possibly know a thing (compared to a Usenutter
no less). When hysterics allege that leading horticulturists are "old men"
when many are women of whatever age, that they are "dinosaurs" who haven't
published in thirty years when the articles are less than a year old --
such things sound ABSOLUTELY hysterical with groundless assertion heaped
upon groundless assertion.
Now you are reduced to charging me with your own fault, of playing at
being all-knowing. You not I claim to know more than leading
horticulturists who're just dinosaurs whose learning is outmoded. You not
I claim there are an alternative group of anonymous horticulturists most
of whom you know from UseNet. There are a coukple folks in this thread who
seem to need to learn a great deal more than they've learned so far & are
never going to bother to learn it. I'm definitely not one of that camp,
because I make no great claim to superior knowledge, just a luckily
healthy organic garden & a tendency to research everything before leaping
in. So when laying charges of playing at being ultra-knowledgeable, make
sure your mirror is in focus.
And if you sillies can't cite professionals & articles, then don't allude
to professionals & articles you can't cite. I am not one of those CITE!
CITE! people as I really don't care that people are full of bullshit on
UseNet. I don't ask people for citations who've merely given an opinion
that may not have much truth to it. But when people themselves allude to
professionals & articles that apparently do not exist, am I to assume
they're silly liars before even asking them for the specifics? I've asked
thrice for specifics AFTER they were alluded to in support of
unsound-seeming judgements. No specifics were forthcoming -- so it does
begin to look like I'm playing with hysterics & pretenders rather than
learning from knowledgeable people. But hey, it's Usenet, if one can't
enjoy playing with the pretenders, then nine-tenths of the time it'll end
up being boring.
-paghat the ratgirl
T Jaszewski
wrote:
>I will stop here. It all looks a little histrionic to me. Breath...
"hippies create police, police create hippies"
meher baba
I'm convinced Victoria and John deserve each other....
"I have a rock garden. Last week three of them died."
Richard Diran
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 12:31:33 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com
(paghat) wrote:
>
>
> >Y'all GOTTA come up with better arguments. When you claim to be sharing
> >personal expertise shared by many experts, experts who read many
> >up-to-date articles, but then no one will play the "game" of citing who
> >these experts are & where these articles are published, then y'all begin
> >to look like you're just lying because you didn't have a sound argument to
> >begin with & got a bit hysterical.
>
>
>
> I will stop here. It all looks a little histrionic to me. Breath...
I poopy, I wanted to see the next round of self agrandizements & silly
justifications. That was fun.
-paggers
T Jaszewski
wrote:
>Bite me
you animaux.....
Falcon
I think she kind of sweet on you, good luck (Smile)
Pam
paghat wrote:
Cool your jets, paghat. This is not rocket science and citing 'professionals'
makes no never mind one way or another. We are not talking about brain
surgery, just planting techniques. The post got at least two responses from
professional nurserypersons/landscapers with a fair amount of experience and
horticultural knowledge. That the responses were completely opposite should
come as no surprise to anyone that has spent time in the field. Conditions and
practices differ depending on location and regional preferences and opinions
on techniques will reflect that. It makes one no less valid than the other -
just different. There are no hard and fast rules when dealing with gardening
and planting - everything is variable depending on the issues at hand. The key
to successful planting is to know your plant and its needs and know your
soils, then take the time and care in planting to give it the best possible
chances of survival. You may choose to leave the wrappings on, other prefer to
remove them.
Life is full of choices. Save your crusade for something of real importance.
Pam - gardengal
paghat
Arguing with people who tell whoppers, who pretend to have citations they
can't site, in journals they've never seen, with professional expertise
they don't have, horiticultural buddies who remain anonymous, while at the
same time dissing the nearly uniform opinion of actual horticulturalists
as "old man dinosaurs" whereas UseNutters know it all, & finally start
backpeddling like crazy, well, it is not a crusade to "play" with such
UseNutters. It's more the equivalent of poking at a whiskey-barrel full of
little squirrel monkeys just to hear 'em squeek. And yes you're quite
right, anyone can do things wrong if they please, they can even put their
newly purchased shrubs straight into the chipper if they please.
-paghat
Pam
paghat wrote:
Well, let's see.........on rereading the thread, I haven't found anyone who is
telling whoppers, only recounting their own experience. The only one who has claimed
to have any "citations" is you and your "nine out of ten professionals" - you
mentioned two. The professional expertise is most certainly here and they did
indeed respond - at least three professional landscapers, a couple of nurserypeople
and at least one professional gardener. Professional, as in making a living at it,
not just having a nursery advise you how to plant. Third, you may want to get all
your horticultural knowledge from "journals", but many of us have had professional
training and I can assure you that very little horticultural advice is uniform and
experience speaks a great deal. You can choose to believe it or not, its entirely up
to you. And if you are so adamant about the lack of quality information one can
obtain on Usenet, what the heck are you here for?
It appears you are the one backpedaling. Go poke at your whiskey barrel full of
monkeys somewhere else.
Pam - gardengal
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 11:53:03 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com
(paghat) wrote:
>
> >Arguing with people who tell whoppers, who pretend to have citations they
> >can't site, in journals they've never seen, with professional expertise
> >they don't have, horiticultural buddies who remain anonymous, while at the
> >same time dissing the nearly uniform opinion of actual horticulturalists
> >as "old man dinosaurs" whereas UseNutters know it all, & finally start
> >backpeddling like crazy, well, it is not a crusade to "play" with such
> >UseNutters. It's more the equivalent of poking at a whiskey-barrel full of
> >little squirrel monkeys just to hear 'em squeek. And yes you're quite
> >right, anyone can do things wrong if they please, they can even put their
> >newly purchased shrubs straight into the chipper if they please.
> >
> >-paghat
>
> I am a horticulturist who worked in the industry as a grower and nursery
> director for a few decades. I'm not back peddling, just ignoring your ongoing
> histrionics and such.
Oh goody! Another round! This is the fourth time you've claimed you're
done only to go at it from yet another silly directions -- "I'm so smart,
I know all" is NOT a basis of credibility you should know, almost as
comical as your dismissing all professional horticulturalists who've
published controlled studies as "old man dinosaurs" unpublished for thirty
years & unworthy of attention, which since they weren't all old, male, &
the oldest of my citations five years old the most recent last October. By
your dismissals & disdain for actual expertise, & misrepresentaiton of who
these peopel are, & claim of being chummy with nameless smarter
horticulturists & being an old dinosaur at it yourself, you mostly talke
yourself into a deep black hole full of rootrot, a response usually done
by someone who really has begun to argue from the point of
insubstantiability.
It begins to appear that tellin' the truth isn't in your realm of
experience, whether it's only "I'm done!" when you're not done four times
in a row, or "I know more than all the old dinosaurs whose expertise are
widely recognized". Now in the cat newsgroup there are half a dozen
highschool dropouts who don't know piss from vinegar backing their lame
argumetns with claims they're trained veterinarians. I've learned to take
all such claims with a grain of salt. But are professionals capable of
stupid opinions? By your own evidence the long-term professional
horticulturists are know-nothing dinosaurs. I guess you speak from VERY
personal experience, heh hee ho.
The cool thing, though, is that your boastings & internally contradictory
assertions convey a personality type that is generally male; to insist on
never being wrong, to argue lamely that old experts suck then to claim to
be an old expert oneself, to be wildly self-aggrandizing without substance
-- used to hearing Hells Angels guys doing that. And no kidding, I admire
that an old gal can be as unreasonable & silly as the boys, it can be
quite empowering "to go boldly forward" as a foolish braveheart.
But as for what you've "ignored" while repeatedly participating in this
thread (certainly not ignoring those of us who find you amusing enough to
play with in the sandbox of UseNet) -- what you ignore is requests for
simple specifics: you have up to now tallied a huge number of vague &
unspecific claims while assiduously ignoring the easiest request for
specicifity; you've had time to assert there are nine experts who back
your minority opinion, but no time at all to cite any but yourself & a
vague allusion to many on UseNet (where everyone's an expert, riiiight).
All the time in the world to restate unusual minority opinions & all the
time in the world to claim you're not wasting any time filling in the
rather enormous blanks. Your plethora of unsubstantiated assertions do
not add up to anyone's histrionics but your own, hee hee heh, when
initially all I asked for was something I could personally peruse in order
to find even slight validity to your assertions -- given that you DID
assert your alleged numerous experts read all the latest journals, seems
no big deal to have named one of the supporting articles these reading
experts relied on.
At first I actually believed you could've provided something substantial
to back a minority opinion, as minority opinions exist all over the place
& are worth at least moderate consideration; but in the long run you've
shown great propensity for bullshit of all variety, but just run clean out
of time wherever it would be simpler to back it up with anything but vague
references to journals, vague reference to readers thereof who you allege
are themselves thoroughly if namelessly expert, all the while backpeddling
like mad & sayin' it ain't backpeddling if yr head's on backward.
-paghat the happy ratgirl
paghat
> Well, let's see.........on rereading the thread, I haven't found anyone who is
> telling whoppers, only recounting their own experience.
Well, since you BELIEVE whoppers, you probably don't consider them such.
When it was asserted that UseNutters are experts, that was a whopper. When
it was asserted that published botanists at leading universities &
nationally recognized horitculturists were know-nothing old dinosaurs,
that was a whopper on several levels, & further asserted they were all
men, as if that would've won the argument had it been true, but it wasn't
true, so another whopper. So by now I don't believe it either when weak
assertions are backed by ADDED information of having thirty years
expertise that came to a minority conclusion -- it took a LOT of whoppers
for me to come to this cynical position, but since most assertions have in
fact been whoppers, I must now reluctantly assume that EVERY assertion is
a lie since those that can actually be tested have all been lies.
> The only one who has claimed
> to have any "citations" is you and your "nine out of ten professionals" - you
> mentioned two.
Then you didn't read to the beginning of the thread. I named four by name;
I included a "minority" opinion that was anonymous & unreliable; & I
checked without quoting ten sources in all. But even if you doubted I
checked ten because I didn't wish to quote redundantly, I did give four
highly specific citations, not just two, & the response to that, from v.,
was that nine out of ten of HER experts said the opposite. I actually
believed her & asked for a couple examples, since as near as I could tell
from a wide array of recognized experts, this advice was wrong, but I
would certainly peruse the opinions of contrary experts, & if v'd REALLY
known nine such, it would've been very easy to cite one credible source
among so many. Instead she ammended her initial claim of nine experts to
her fellow usenutters. As I should've expected, but until then I was
actually taking people seriously! Since then, I'm just playing with
peevish UseNutters, two at least, & it's great fun, I am not being catty
or ironic to say I think you're cute as all get-out.
-paghat the ratgirl
>
> Pam - gardengal
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> I read the first sentence. I don't even have the time to read your post, and
> can't imagine how you had time to write it. Oh yeah, I'm done again.
Hahaha.
> What a maroon. Oh yeah, either type slower with less histrionics, or
use spell
> check.
Clearly if you knew what you were talking about you would talk about that
instead. And by the way, "Who can spell can't write" -Mark Twain.
-paggers
paghat
<ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> victoria <ani...@animaux.net0> expounded:
>
> >On Mon, 21 May 2001 11:53:03 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com
(paghat) wrote:
> >
> >>Arguing with people who tell whoppers, who pretend to have citations they
> >>can't site, in journals they've never seen, with professional expertise
> >>they don't have, horiticultural buddies who remain anonymous, while at the
> >>same time dissing the nearly uniform opinion of actual horticulturalists
> >>as "old man dinosaurs" whereas UseNutters know it all, & finally start
> >>backpeddling like crazy, well, it is not a crusade to "play" with such
> >>UseNutters. It's more the equivalent of poking at a whiskey-barrel full of
> >>little squirrel monkeys just to hear 'em squeek. And yes you're quite
> >>right, anyone can do things wrong if they please, they can even put their
> >>newly purchased shrubs straight into the chipper if they please.
> >>
> >>-paghat
> >
> >I am a horticulturist who worked in the industry as a grower and nursery
> >director for a few decades. I'm not back peddling, just ignoring your
ongoing
> >histrionics and such.
> >
> I am another horticulturist
Me too! I'm the Goddess of Horticulture!
(Apparently "Horiticulturist" is whoever points at herself & says "I'm a
horticulturist." One of those vague undegreed states of being like
"Theosophist" or "Doctor of UFOlogy" I guess.)
> who worked in the landscaping field for
> many years, and I echo Victoria's feelings. I don't need to defend my
> opinions to anyone.
If that'd been your & V's attitude from the start, then you'd not've been
justifying yourselves with wild assertions against accredited, degreed, &
recognized gardening specialists, dismissing ACTUAL horticulturists
(including women & young men) who work full-time in experimental gardens &
write about their controlled-dustudy discoveries as "dinosaurs," "old
men," & so on. A sound opinion requires no such defensiveness, you are
quite right, & your continuing extreme defensiveness says it all.
> And they are just that, opinions. There's a
> world of thought out there on the subject, I chose to go with what I
> found to be logical. 'Usenutters' hide under hats, too.
And you may even have good luck if everything ELSE you do is closer to the
standard guidelines, & once again "justifying" yourself with that vague &
unspecific World Of Opinion you selected from, though unable to cite where
this persistently alluded to alternate-world source of expertise might be
found (other than UseNet where just EVERYone's a Horticulturist with
Ninety Years Experience in getting the dirt out of under their toenails if
nothing else).
But I'll give y'all one more chance to very simply show me everything you
say isn't just bullshit, self-agrandizement, & whoppers. You have both,
now, claimed to be "horticulturists." Here's a definition of
Horticultirist, borrowing from the California Occupation Guide:
"HORTICULTURISTS are agricultural scientists dedicated to finding better ways
to grow, harvest, store, process and ship fruits, vegetables and ornamental
plants."
Not the word SCIENTIST in there. A typical horticulturalist will have two
years of applied science at a major academic institution, plus a
horticultural internship at an experimental garden, accumulating 70 credit
two or three credits at a time in every aspect of horticulture. So tell
me, what botanical or horticultural scientific degrees do you hold? What
experimental guardens have you labored in AS scientists dedicated to
scientific controlled studies of guardening techniques? In which
university library collection are your scientific papers, required for
your degree, deposited? Who were your professors at what universities or
technical schools? Are you REALLY "horticulturists," i.e., trained
scientists SCIENTIFICALLY investigating gardening techniques, or are you,
simply, gardeners with a possibly meritorious body of knowledge gathered
willynilly & mixed up with the usual gardeners' mistaken folklore?
HORTICULTURISTS are not just nursery workers who help get the pansies
started, though some of what the horticulturist in charge may know could
well rub off on ya while you have your minimum wage flunky job in the
greenhouse or field. Nursery workers in fact are NOTORIOUS for knowing
very little, it's kind of the equivalent of being a burger-flipper &
claiming to know how to raise cattle. They are no more horticulturists
than burgerflippers are dairymen. But after becoming such a science by
academic training, after putting in one's hours in the experimental
garden, the tragic future for most of these would-be scientists is indeed
apt to be as buyers, retailers, managers, landscapers, & so on, in which
case they will call themselves buyers, retailers, managers, landscapers, &
so on, & if they are ALSO horticulturists (i.e., SCIENTISTS) then chances
are they haven't been employed as such since they were volunteers in some
university's experimental garden. Some few will continue on scientifically
in large production outposts that provide cultivars, hybrids, genetically
engineered seed, & so on, to retailers or farmers, rarely straight to the
gardeners who in reality hardly ever even meet horticulturists or wouldn't
mistake themselves for same.
If you do have your baccalaureate or masters in horticulture & can thereby
honestly, rather than as a pretender & a poseur, lay honest claim to being
a horticultirist rather than just another gardener like most of us, with
no more or less expertise than Mrs. Jones who never takes off her garden
hat over in the Steilacomb Mental Institution. If you are authentically
horticulturists rather than wannabes who may once have worked for one,
well then great, I will finally be able to laud the two of you for finally
making ONE claim you can actually substantiate. In the meantime I will
continue to presume you are a GARDENER, and may or may not have worked for
or under a horticulturist at some point in your life, but remained in
essence a GARDENER. If you do have at least that bare minimum of the two
year degree, no apology will be required for my having been a doubting
suzy, since you've exaggerated so many points without basis up to now, so
naturally I assume your double-claim to being scientists in a specific
field is just further extension of some unrequited desire to feel
important & unable to do so on actual merits, which could well be many &
worthwhile if you'd focus on those instead of idle boastings concocted to
support a single insupportable gardening practice you've fallen into by
mistake.
-paggers
T Jaszewski
wrote:
>What a maroon.
?????????
ma·roon1 (m-rn)
v. tr. ma·rooned, ma·roon·ing, ma·roons.
To put ashore on a deserted island or coast and intentionally abandon.
To abandon or isolate with little hope of ready rescue or escape: The
travelers were marooned by the blizzard.
n.
Often Maroon
A fugitive Black slave in the West Indies in the 17th and 18th
centuries.
A descendant of such a slave.
A person who is marooned, as on an island.
unless she's a fugitive Black slave in the West Indies in the 17th
and 18th centuries or
A descendant of such a slave.
A person who is marooned, as on an island.
you may need to chek yer spelin chekar....
Ann
Ann
>-paggers
Blah, bla, blah
By the time you're finished, you'll have written The Great American
(bad) Novel. Doesn't change a thing.
Ann
>I'm just playing with
>peevish UseNutters, two at least,
So now you're admitting to being a troll? Troll on (this should be
worth at least 17 paragraphs).
paghat
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 22:53:00 GMT, victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
> wrote:
>
> >What a maroon.
>
> ?????????
> ma·roon1 (m-rn)
> v. tr. ma·rooned, ma·roon·ing, ma·roons.
The Maroons constitute an actual ethnic group descended from escaped
slaves & from the black Berber pirates who were with Diego Columbus.
"You're a Maroon" is a semi-polite way of saying, "You're a nigger" &
demeaning to actual Maroons. Personally when someone calls me a nigger OR
a Maroon, I embrace that, cuz whether I am or not, nothing wrong with it.
Among Diego's mercenary pirates was an amazonian Berber woman known as
Nanny. She left the Spanish ship to found one of the two main tribes
ofMaroons. When slave-hunters tried to capture Maroons to sell to American
plantation owners or Brazillian slave owners, it is said that Nanny would
catch the cannonballs of besieging slavers -- catch them between the moons
of her ass -- & fired them back at the slavers. Nanny is a national
heroine to this day, whose deeds are celebrated annually by the Maroons.
So I wouldn't mind being a Maroon. But these amateur gardeners pretending
to be horticulturists while dismissing the evaluations actual
horticulturists have arrived at in controlled studies in experimental
gardens, hey, those amateurs are not Maroons, they're morons.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
<ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) expounded:
>
> >-paggers
>
> Blah, bla, blah
>
> By the time you're finished, you'll have written The Great American
> (bad) Novel. Doesn't change a thing.
That's right. Ya still don't have a leg to stand on.
-paggers
paghat
<ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) expounded:
>
> >I'm just playing with
> >peevish UseNutters, two at least,
>
> So now you're admitting to being a troll? Troll on (this should be
> worth at least 17 paragraphs).
Since you've many times griped because of your own short attention span,
I'll keep this one short just for you: "Your attempt to troll me failed."
And smacks of desparation. Just get the facts rather than evade reality.
-paggers
Michael Strauch
> wrote:
>
> >What a maroon.
For those who might not know, this is a quote from the esteemed Bugs
Bunny.
Falcon
Also, if this battle continues true Bugs fans can do word find for
Idgit and imbisilly. Note that spelling is a little vague since the
scripts are hard to find and Bugs does not do interviews anymore.
John Riley
>victoria <ani...@animaux.net0> expounded:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2001 11:53:03 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>>
>>>Arguing with people who tell whoppers, who pretend to have citations they
>>>can't site, in journals they've never seen, with professional expertise
>>>they don't have, horiticultural buddies who remain anonymous, while at the
>>>same time dissing the nearly uniform opinion of actual horticulturalists
>>>as "old man dinosaurs" whereas UseNutters know it all, & finally start
>>>backpeddling like crazy, well, it is not a crusade to "play" with such
>>>UseNutters. It's more the equivalent of poking at a whiskey-barrel full of
>>>little squirrel monkeys just to hear 'em squeek. And yes you're quite
>>>right, anyone can do things wrong if they please, they can even put their
>>>newly purchased shrubs straight into the chipper if they please.
>>>
>>>-paghat
>>
>>I am a horticulturist who worked in the industry as a grower and nursery
>>director for a few decades. I'm not back peddling, just ignoring your ongoing
>>histrionics and such.
>>
>I am another horticulturist who worked in the landscaping field for
>many years, and I echo Victoria's feelings. I don't need to defend my
>opinions to anyone. And they are just that, opinions. There's a
>world of thought out there on the subject, I chose to go with what I
>found to be logical. 'Usenutters' hide under hats, too.
And I'm yet another horticulturist, and I think the problem was not
personal experience, but the results of controlled trials carried out
by horticultural teaching and research institutions, and published in
reputable journals. Afterall, the original point of disagreement was
not which works best for *you* but what was the consensus of opinion
amongst horticulturists.
Paggers then wrote:
>They void guarantees if burlap is removed from rootballs. When I asked
>about this they said the most common cause of failure for trees is air in
>the rootball, where fungus & rot can start. If the burlap is removed it
>increases the likelihood of the soil cracking & letting in air before the
>tree has laid down further roots & really established itself. The bag rots
>quickly, the roots can poke through it rotted or not, the burlap is not in
>the way. They do, however, require that the burlap be untied at the top &
>unwrapped to the widest part of the top of the ball.
which seemed eminently believable to me. The nursery virtually putting
its money where its mouth is. Afterall, I have never experienced tree
roots bothered by a bit of half rotted hessian bag.
I've accidently had trees take root in the soil whilst planted in a
sturdy plastic pot. They grew like the clappers and mangled the pot!
Regards John Riley West Oz
RamblinOn
momma did. I've learned over time that it isn't easy to kill plants, except
for fuschia. I just can't keep one of them alive. Yesterday, we had the good
fortune to inherit some landscape plants from our neighbors, who can
apparently afford to spend much more on landscaping than we can. They have a
huge variety of tropical plants, all well tended by pros. Some of their palms
died, in small planter areas at each condo entry. Being the nosy neighbors
that we are, we strolled over to see what was going on. There was a front-end
loader, with rope attached, pulling shrubs and dracaena out of the ground and
dumping them on a pile. We inquired, and learned the rejects were headed for
the dump. We asked for, and received, donations. "Take all you want." So,
we had six new shrubs (kind of heathery looking things with small leaves,
round shape) and a couple of large, attractive clumps of dracaena, over in our
yard and planted and watered before noon. A couple of the smaller shrubs had
root balls the exact same size and shape as the pots they originally had
arrived in. Poor things. The larger ones had large, vigorous root systems
with much of the finer roots intact. Had to chop off some of the larger,
older roots to fit in the hole, but salvaged most of the root. I suspect that
a shrub that dies with an intact burlap cover might have died of lack of
water/nutrients, rather than the fact that the burlap was there.
I've gotten curious about the burlap discussion, so went to may favorite site
for info. UFla say peel it back. Here is a link.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/MG077
Now I've got too many different kinds of plants in one area - it makes my
brain itch. May have to move 'em again :o)
Griffin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to gardening, and very inexperienced. I just bought an Andromeda
> bush, the root ball is in a burlap sack. Should I remove it when planting?
> Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance, Ed
Ann
>The Maroons constitute an actual ethnic group descended from escaped
I have a soapbox and I (think I) know how to use it!
Pam
paghat wrote:
>
> And by the way, "Who can spell can't write" -Mark Twain.
With all due respect to Samuel Clemens, "who can't spell is illiterate."
Pam
Greg Zywicki
Greg Zywicki
I guess Mel Blanc was a bigot, then
BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote in message news:<BADSPAMBADpaghat...@soggy72.drizzle.com>...
>
> it is said that Nanny would
> catch the cannonballs of besieging slavers -- catch them between the moons
> of her ass -- & fired them back at the slavers. Nanny is a national
> heroine to this day, whose deeds are celebrated *annually* by the Maroons.
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> Oy vey, it was a phrase out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. Keep braying.
See, you don't even CARE to learn some cool history. Dunce on ALL levels.
A gal with half an IQ would've noted the history is spiffy, the
insinuation was not. But you do seem to enjoy being just kinda generically
dumb.
> Oh, and if YOU represent a professional horticulturist, I'd prefer to be
> amateur...however, I retired from the profession at age 37, which was 8 years
> ago. Eh. You are boring.
Hey, Ms Lying At Every Breath, you NEVER caught me claiming to be anything
but a happy gardener. Don't transfer your amazing whoppers onto me, you
ol' pansy-plantin' dogwalker. Keep backpeddlin' O mesmerized one.
-paghat
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 19:37:17 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com
(paghat) wrote:
>
>
> >The Maroons constitute an actual ethnic group descended from escaped
> >slaves & from the black Berber pirates who were with Diego Columbus.
> >"You're a Maroon" is a semi-polite way of saying, "You're a nigger" &
> >demeaning to actual Maroons. Personally when someone calls me a nigger OR
> >a Maroon, I embrace that, cuz whether I am or not, nothing wrong with it.
> >
> >Among Diego's mercenary pirates was an amazonian Berber woman known as
> >Nanny. She left the Spanish ship to found one of the two main tribes
> >ofMaroons. When slave-hunters tried to capture Maroons to sell to American
> >plantation owners or Brazillian slave owners, it is said that Nanny would
> >catch the cannonballs of besieging slavers -- catch them between the moons
> >of her ass -- & fired them back at the slavers. Nanny is a national
> >heroine to this day, whose deeds are celebrated annually by the Maroons.
> >
> >So I wouldn't mind being a Maroon. But these amateur gardeners pretending
> >to be horticulturists while dismissing the evaluations actual
> >horticulturists have arrived at in controlled studies in experimental
> >gardens, hey, those amateurs are not Maroons, they're morons.
> >
> >-paghat the ratgirl
>
>
paghat
Be careful there; some of the best writers in the world can't spell worth
a damn, which you'd know if you were even literate, but in my own case I
just don't bother to proofread -- this to me is blabbing at a party, not
High Art, and anyone who expects every little party-jabber to be revised &
edited is what one would call an anal retentive nutball. And you sillies,
P & V, claiming to be horiticulturists the way a dog-psychiatrist pretends
to be a doctor, encouraging & deserving the joyful dissing from Paggers,
knowing you're continuously lying through your teeth at every turn and
THAT didn't work, now must resort to spellflames & charges of illiteracy
because of your own desparation after your foolhardy failed reliance on
lies & self-aggrandizements where factual data, had you had any, would've
actually worked. You had no facts, now you've reduced yourselves to this.
You made claims for yourselves that you cannot substantiate. Suppose, now
that I've been spellflamed & declared illiterate, that I claimed to be an
award-winning novelist, poet, short story writer, & editor, who will be
honored this very weekend as Guest of Honor at World Horror Convention.
You never know who you're talking to on UseNet really; COULD be another
loser like yourself, but might not be too, so always best to assume the
best, like I assumed P & V were on the level until the overt lying mounted
up. You both claim to be an accredited horticulturist, I ask in what
experimental garden you served your apprenticeship, & your reply isn't
even that you use the idea of "horticulturist" liberally in a
non-accredited amateurish incorrect manner, no, but that Paggers is
illiterate. How about something actually true, that Paggers is rude, that
Paggers made you feel bad, that Paggers is a fucking bitch & you wish you
had a gun & the nerve to shoot Paggers, & okay, so Pammy doesn't know shit
about shit & told some lies, so fucking what, it's UseNet for crine out
loud, it's so democratic even a lying geeky cartoon addict deserves
respect.
Anyone can claim anything on UseNet, so I claim to be a successful author.
Prove I'm not. It most assuredly COULD be true, like it COULD have been
true you were a horticulturist with the very botanical & scientific
degrees that would qualify your saying you were. Turned out that you
gained your title by some mysterious method other than education, & hey,
maybe I gained mine as author by self-publishing a dumbass book of poems
about chocolate chip cookies. Then again, maybe you really did, in blind
anger, make an even bigger fool of yourself spellflaming your extreme &
vast superior in the literary arts.
Golly yes, I can see it's hard to be a tard, but when all you have left is
insults because you ran clean out of reason, if you would try to make your
insults APROPOS they might actually sting the target rather than make you
look increasingly hopeless. It also helps to take a little pride in being
an idiot, since you can't stop being one anyway, it shows humbleness to
shrug & really seem to feel "So what if I'm an idiot, I've got some nice
qualities too."
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
gregz...@cs.com (Greg Zywicki) wrote:
> See **'s for unintended pun
>
> Greg Zywicki
> I guess Mel Blanc was a bigot, then
Mel (and also Larry Harmon) were friends of my dad. I never met either of
them myself, but from tales told I think I'm on good ground suggesting
that Mel had a very quick sense of humor & would've LOVED the factual
history of the Maroons given in reply to a couple lying buttmunchkins
pretending they have education they lack in support of assertions they
couldn't actually support & finally resorting to blind anger. If YOU ever
felt the least affinity for Mel or his vocal creations, believe it,
he'd've chortled at things that seem to have gone over your head. Oh,
also, if you don't know who Larry is, think of what you got called all
through junior highschool.
-paghat the ratgirl
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote in message
news:<BADSPAMBADpaghat...@soggy72.drizzle.com>...
> >
> > it is said that Nanny would
> > catch the cannonballs of besieging slavers -- catch them between the moons
> > of her ass -- & fired them back at the slavers. Nanny is a national
> > heroine to this day, whose deeds are celebrated annually by actual Maroons.
> >
> > -paghat the ratgirl
Pam
As someone who has admitted not knowing plants, your knowledge of horticulture and
what constitutes a horticulturist is right up there on the same level.
paghat wrote:
>
> But I'll give y'all one more chance to very simply show me everything you
> say isn't just bullshit, self-agrandizement, & whoppers. You have both,
> now, claimed to be "horticulturists." Here's a definition of
> Horticultirist, borrowing from the California Occupation Guide:
>
> "HORTICULTURISTS are agricultural scientists dedicated to finding better ways
> to grow, harvest, store, process and ship fruits, vegetables and ornamental
> plants."
For argument's sake, let's complete the California definition:
"Also concerned with insuring healthy and hardy plants, they work
with plant pathologists and other experts to develop plants that resist
disease and grow well in all climates. The field of horticulture is both
dynamic and exciting. Horticulturists have opportunities to work in many
interesting, challenging and different areas."
"Horticulturists who want to remain rooted to their profession work in
nursery production. These specialists in "growing" know everything about
plants. They are experts in all parts of plant cultivation and propagation
including seeding, cutting, layering, budding, and grafting. They also
protect the plants from pests and diseases."
"Individuals who enjoy meeting people and sharing their plant knowledge might
find their niche working in garden centers, the retail arm of the field.
Serving as a link between the nursery industry and the plant buying public,
Horticulturists can work as buyers, landscape designers or as managers."
"Floriculturists, those who specialize in flowers, bedding and potted plants,
will find challenges in floral design and wholesale and retail florist work."
"Landscape designers work with both commercial and residential customers and
have opportunities to convert clients' visions and dreams into reality.
Landscape maintenance specialists work to maintain and protect the beauty of
established landscaping."
"Horticultural Therapists know just how therapeutic plants and gardening can
be, and they plan therapy projects to help senior citizens and those with
emotional and physical disabilities. Still even more Horticulturists have
rewarding careers working as:
-- Country Cooperative Extension Agents
-- Teachers and Educators
-- Agricultural Inspectors
-- Sales Representatives
-- Golf Course Superintendents"
hmmmm......lots of research scientists filling those Sales Rep positions, I'll
bet.
> Not the word SCIENTIST in there. A typical horticulturalist will have two
> years of applied science at a major academic institution, plus a
> horticultural internship at an experimental garden, accumulating 70 credit
> two or three credits at a time in every aspect of horticulture.
Let's move on to the training aspects:
"Employers hiring professional Horticulturists prefer to hire those with a
bachelor's degree in horticulture or a closely related agricultural
science. Specialized course work or prior experience usually determines the
field of horticulture entered. A number of public universities and colleges
in California grant bachelor degrees in horticulture with two of the
campuses offering graduate studies. Over half of the community colleges
throughout the State offer associate degrees in horticulture."
Don't see anything in that to indicate what training a 'typical' horticulturist
must have other than some form of educational background in the field. Where the
notion of required interning "at an experimental garden, accumulating 70 credit
two or three credits at a time in every aspect of horticulture" comes into play, I
have no idea. No doubt another one of your broad assumptions about a profession of
which you have very little understanding.
> So tell
> me, what botanical or horticultural scientific degrees do you hold? What
> experimental guardens have you labored in AS scientists dedicated to
> scientific controlled studies of guardening techniques? In which
> university library collection are your scientific papers, required for
> your degree, deposited? Who were your professors at what universities or
> technical schools? Are you REALLY "horticulturists," i.e., trained
> scientists SCIENTIFICALLY investigating gardening techniques, or are you,
> simply, gardeners with a possibly meritorious body of knowledge gathered
> willynilly & mixed up with the usual gardeners' mistaken folklore?
So you tell me - where in that paragraph outlining education and training of
horticulturists according to your California Occupation Guide does it say that
botanical or 'scientific horticultural degrees' are required? Yeah, I AM a degreed
horticulturist but I didn't have to write any scientific papers to receive my
degree - just took a whole bunch of classes on a whole range of subjects and
managed to graduate with honors to boot. Bet those sales reps didn't write too
many scientific papers, either.
>
> HORTICULTURISTS are not just nursery workers who help get the pansies
> started, though some of what the horticulturist in charge may know could
> well rub off on ya while you have your minimum wage flunky job in the
> greenhouse or field. Nursery workers in fact are NOTORIOUS for knowing
> very little, it's kind of the equivalent of being a burger-flipper &
> claiming to know how to raise cattle. They are no more horticulturists
> than burgerflippers are dairymen.
Your lack of knowledge about this field is indeed startling. Since I work in a
nursery and am a degreed horticulturist, it is safe to assume you nothing about
which you speak. If nurserymen are "notorious" for knowing so little about
horticulture, why is it you used them as the reason for supporting your stand on
how to properly plant a tree - something you apparently know very little about
from firsthand knowledge?
> But after becoming such a science by
> academic training, after putting in one's hours in the experimental
> garden, the tragic future for most of these would-be scientists is indeed
> apt to be as buyers, retailers, managers, landscapers, & so on, in which
> case they will call themselves buyers, retailers, managers, landscapers, &
> so on, & if they are ALSO horticulturists (i.e., SCIENTISTS) then chances
> are they haven't been employed as such since they were volunteers in some
> university's experimental garden. Some few will continue on scientifically
> in large production outposts that provide cultivars, hybrids, genetically
> engineered seed, & so on, to retailers or farmers, rarely straight to the
> gardeners who in reality hardly ever even meet horticulturists or wouldn't
> mistake themselves for same.
What drivel! Apparently you failed to finish reading the source YOU presented as
being the definitive explanation of what a horticulturist is.
>
> If you do have your baccalaureate or masters in horticulture & can thereby
> honestly, rather than as a pretender & a poseur, lay honest claim to being
> a horticultirist rather than just another gardener like most of us, with
> no more or less expertise than Mrs. Jones who never takes off her garden
> hat over in the Steilacomb Mental Institution. If you are authentically
> horticulturists rather than wannabes who may once have worked for one,
> well then great, I will finally be able to laud the two of you for finally
> making ONE claim you can actually substantiate. In the meantime I will
> continue to presume you are a GARDENER, and may or may not have worked for
> or under a horticulturist at some point in your life, but remained in
> essence a GARDENER. If you do have at least that bare minimum of the two
> year degree, no apology will be required for my having been a doubting
> suzy, since you've exaggerated so many points without basis up to now, so
> naturally I assume your double-claim to being scientists in a specific
> field is just further extension of some unrequited desire to feel
> important & unable to do so on actual merits, which could well be many &
> worthwhile if you'd focus on those instead of idle boastings concocted to
> support a single insupportable gardening practice you've fallen into by
> mistake.
Your aptitude for hyperbole is astonishing. You come into this thread with no more
practical experience in the issue at hand other than what some nurseryman told you
when planting a tree. Rather than having any real experience to support your view,
you call on a number of sources, of which you have no personal knowledge, and then
follow up by concluding that just because we who responded with differing views
are Usenet posters, we obviously know nothing about which we speak.
I see no reason to have to justify my training to you, nor do I believe does Ann,
Victoria, John or David or any of the other horticulturists who participate on
this forum and may make (or once made) their living by this profession. You, on
the other hand, have no apparent training in this field and very little
understanding of what is comprised by it. I'd suggest before you go impugning the
background and experience of others, you might gather a little bit more of your
own.
Pam - gardengal
paghat
<ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat) expounded:
>
> >The Maroons constitute an actual ethnic group descended from escaped
>
> I have a soapbox and I (think I) know how to use it!
Your love of history is showing.
-paghat
paghat
> As someone who has admitted not knowing plants, your knowledge of
horticulture and
> what constitutes a horticulturist is right up there on the same level.
[3,000 words deleted]
All that & buried in it the central fact: You lied, you are in NO WAY
qualified to take on the title Horticulturalist. You have faulted me for
my whelter of words, but at least mine aren't designed, as yours, to
disguise the central fact that you've been lying in a self-aggrandizing
manner. If I'd been caught telling such whoppers I think I'd be inclined
to melt back into the wall for a while rather than dissimilate like that,
or I'd just say, oh shit, ya got me, big deal, it's fucking UseNet after
all, get over it.
> Don't see anything in that to indicate what training a 'typical'
> horticulturist must have other than some form of educational background
> in the field.
While there certainly are scientists in this world who came by sound
expertise in an amateur environment, the focus remains SCIENCE, not a
low-paying job in a nursery or clipping your own roses. You are not on
even the most dilletante level a scientist & your self-agrandizing desire
to represent yourself as one does not make your incorrect gardening-lore
more credible.
> So you tell me - where in that paragraph outlining education and training of
> horticulturists according to your California Occupation Guide does it say that
> botanical or 'scientific horticultural degrees' are required? Yeah, I AM a
> degreed
If you're going to launch an argument that you're a scientist without a
degree, launch it. You're neither an amateur scientist NOR an accredited
one. You're a gawdamn gardener like me. Get used to it. It's not like that
means you're a dumbass because you're only a gardener; no, you're a
dumbass because you claim so much more without even the most stretched &
implausible basis for such claims.
Rest of your dissimilations ingnored, I'm actually beginning to feel sorry
for ya, & that's no frame of mind to poke joyful fun, I start to feel
guilty like if I was teasing an actual retarded adult for being stupid &
should justly feel ashamed.
-paghat
Pam
self-aggrandizing, foolhardy, non-accredited, amateurish, full of shit, a
loser, a fool, an idiot and implied that I was an anal retentive neutral.
Quite an assortment of insults in that little work of art. Remarkable, since
this diatribe is the result of you remarking on something of which you have no
first-hand knowledge: to wit, proper tree planting procedures and
horticulture. Your responses are quickly deteriorating into unintelligible
ravings and are pretty tiresome to boot.
BTU, if you can add reading to your skill bank, you would notice that I never
called you illiterate, only those who can't spell. If you wish to be added to
their numbers, fine with me.
Hey, I'll be the first to say I'm an idiot......I'm an idiot for bothering to
respond to you. And I'll have to admit it's pretty idiotic to attempt to have
any kind of intelligent dialogue with someone who has no idea what they are
talking about. But I learn fast - I'll save my "lies and self aggrandizing"
for a more worthy opponent. John, are you up for it?
Pam - garden gal
paghat
> Wow, impressive rant, ratgirl.
Thanks!
>Let's see - you've called me a liar,
Well, you lied.
> self-aggrandizing, foolhardy, non-accredited, amateurish, full of shit, a
> loser, a fool, an idiot and implied that I was an anal retentive neutral.
Many of which are fun to be so take some pride in it.
> Quite an assortment of insults in that little work of art. Remarkable, since
> this diatribe is the result of you remarking on something of which you have no
> first-hand knowledge: to wit, proper tree planting procedures and
> horticulture. Your responses are quickly deteriorating into unintelligible
> ravings and are pretty tiresome to boot.
Certainly I do not regard my having planted many trees in the last two
years to great effect as making me in any way expert. You on the other
hand make claims to expertise you lack. The difference in us is I make no
false claims.
> BTU, if you can add reading to your skill bank, you would notice that I never
> called you illiterate, only those who can't spell.
That'd be me then. And my buddy Samuel Delany (if you can get to the end
of his novel DAHLGREN, you win a cigar). But if you want to spellflame
people using the term "illiterate" you only add one more to your
ever-expanding list of lies to say "but gee, I didn't mean you."
> Hey, I'll be the first to say I'm an idiot......
Cool! I knew you could be charming or I wouldn't even play.
> But I learn fast -
Uhhm, in most newsgroups this thread would've died early yesterday, so yr
slower to learn than most.
> I'll save my "lies and self aggrandizing"
> for a more worthy opponent. John, are you up for it?
I do think you're right to give up since you're really no good at it,
starting as you have from a position without foundation, supported mainly
by someone even sillier than yourself.
-paggers
Pam
paghat wrote:
> In article <3B0A85EE...@home.com>, Pam <grdn...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > As someone who has admitted not knowing plants, your knowledge of
> horticulture and
> > what constitutes a horticulturist is right up there on the same level.
>
> [3,000 words deleted]
>
> All that & buried in it the central fact: You lied, you are in NO WAY
> qualified to take on the title Horticulturalist. You have faulted me for
> my whelter of words, but at least mine aren't designed, as yours, to
> disguise the central fact that you've been lying in a self-aggrandizing
> manner. If I'd been caught telling such whoppers I think I'd be inclined
> to melt back into the wall for a while rather than dissimilate like that,
> or I'd just say, oh shit, ya got me, big deal, it's fucking UseNet after
> all, get over it.
Well, golly gee........and here I thought that title on my degree that reads
"Ornamental Horticulture" meant that I could call myself a horticulturist. But in
the paghat book of definitions, apparently having a degree in horticulture is not
quite the same as being a horticulturist. Go figure.
>
>
> > Don't see anything in that to indicate what training a 'typical'
> > horticulturist must have other than some form of educational background
> > in the field.
>
> While there certainly are scientists in this world who came by sound
> expertise in an amateur environment, the focus remains SCIENCE, not a
> low-paying job in a nursery or clipping your own roses. You are not on
> even the most dilletante level a scientist & your self-agrandizing desire
> to represent yourself as one does not make your incorrect gardening-lore
> more credible.
I never laid any claim to being a scientist, although I'd venture to wager my
scientific background is just a teeny, tiny bit more than yours. I did claim to be a
professional horticulturist and whatever creative definitions you may come up with
justify your hairbrained assertions to the contrary, that fact remains unchanged. I
am not a "gawdamn gardener" like you - I get paid handsomely to offer horticultural
advice and information. I've appeared on TV in that role and I've even been
published, but not in any of your "scientific journals", so that obviously doesn't
count.
>
> > So you tell me - where in that paragraph outlining education and training of
> > horticulturists according to your California Occupation Guide does it say that
> > botanical or 'scientific horticultural degrees' are required? Yeah, I AM a
> > degreed
>
> If you're going to launch an argument that you're a scientist without a
> degree, launch it. You're neither an amateur scientist NOR an accredited
> one. You're a gawdamn gardener like me. Get used to it. It's not like thatmeans
> you're a dumbass because you're only a gardener; no, you're a dumbass because you
> claim so much more without even the most stretched & implausible basis for such
> claims.
'Scuse me, but I believe you may be the one entitled to be called dumbass if you can
manage to read through an entire post without gaining any insight into what was
said. Exactly what didn't you understand about the statement that I am a degreed
horticulturist?
>
> Rest of your dissimilations ingnored, I'm actually beginning to feel sorry
> for ya, & that's no frame of mind to poke joyful fun, I start to feel
> guilty like if I was teasing an actual retarded adult for being stupid &
> should justly feel ashamed.
>
> -paghat
Yeah, I know what you mean - I'm starting to feel ashamed, too. The playing field is
just not very even. You might want to stop now before you come across as any more
ridiculous than you already appear.
Pam
paghat
> paghat wrote:
>
> > In article <3B0A85EE...@home.com>, Pam <grdn...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As someone who has admitted not knowing plants, your knowledge of
> > horticulture and
> > > what constitutes a horticulturist is right up there on the same level.
> >
> > [3,000 words deleted]
> >
> > All that & buried in it the central fact: You lied, you are in NO WAY
> > qualified to take on the title Horticulturalist. You have faulted me for
> > my whelter of words, but at least mine aren't designed, as yours, to
> > disguise the central fact that you've been lying in a self-aggrandizing
> > manner. If I'd been caught telling such whoppers I think I'd be inclined
> > to melt back into the wall for a while rather than dissimilate like that,
> > or I'd just say, oh shit, ya got me, big deal, it's fucking UseNet after
> > all, get over it.
>
> Well, golly gee........and here I thought that title on my degree that reads
> "Ornamental Horticulture" meant that I could call myself a horticulturist. But
> in the paghat book of definitions, apparently having a degree in horticulture
> is not quite the same as being a horticulturist. Go figure.
As you do me, when you get over 2,000 words I do skim a bit, & saw you
claiming you didn't NEED any training or education to call yourself a
horticulturist. If in that odd orgument you actually did claim to have the
degree anyhow, then hey, your claim to the title is rooted in fact & not
desparate delusion. Though with your huge amount of dissimilation &
fibbing, how would anyone believe it?
> I never laid any claim to being a scientist,
Your contradictions amaze. Either you DO have the degree that is a SCIENCE
bacherlors at the very least, or you don't.
> although I'd venture to wager my
> scientific background is just a teeny, tiny bit more than yours.
Uh-oh -- you should base assumptions on SOMEthing you know. I shan't
bother to outline my youthful experiences in the sciences as a published
herpetologist & medical editor, as it has nothing to do with gardening,
but IF your alleged scientific background exists even marginally, you're
not going to enlarge on that by admitting you're not grounded in science
but even so smarter than anyone who did work for several years in a
leading research hospital. I hope you learn something from this -- don't
extend from your own experience the experience of others. Wait until they
PROVE by their profound ignorance of even basic things that they are as
dumb as you wish them to be. Otherwise you just make yourself look dumber.
your pal,
paghat
Elaine Follansbee
Pam wrote:
> I believe we might be saying the same thing, but from opposing sides. If I
> understand you correctly, you say that nurserymen, in general, plant with more
> knowledge and care than a landscaper. I agree. We guarantee our plants,
> therefore we want to be sure they are planted correctly. You report personal
> observations of landscape contractors involved in improper planting practices
> due to time or financial constraints. So have I. Where we disagree is that
> accepted procedure for correct planting in my area is to remove the wrappings -
> yours is the opposite.
with much snipage...
I guess I just took exception here to the assumption that all *landscape*
contractors don't guarantee their plantings: my husband guarantees his for a full
year (i.e. in good health, not just alive), but were one to fail even after a year
because of how he installed it (and not because the owner's teenager ran it over
with an SUV) he would replace it at no charge. Not "I got my money, you're on your
own"... However, we have observed far to many dead trees installed by *building*
contractors, who just want it to look "finished", and will never be back to address
a complaint.
Any serious business person should operate with long-term customer relations
in mind - shoddy work WILL come back to haunt you.
As far as nurseries we buy from: one will guarantee any tree that fails within a
year, if it was due to poor digging and b&b wrapping, or undetected disease - on
your word of honor. Another one operates under " you buy it, you own it "- no
waranties. Guess which one we favor. BTW, neither one installs any of their
stock.
I believe, at least in our area, the quality of the installation and care at
planting is as much to do with business ethics, as particular professional category
the installer might fall into.
Anecdotal aside: local reputed gardeners we "share" maintenance of a property
with, initially used so much polymer gel that plants heaved out of the ground when
it rained...even the best can make an occasional mistake...
Elaine
BTW: the cages come off, and burlap is usually trimmed as far down as possible
without compromising the root ball (which is most often clay), especially if it
looks like it will require extra babying.
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> What hospital are you writing from? Boy you have a LOT of free time.
You too, AND a propensity to contradict yourself (i mean lie) O Ms. I'm
Done For The Umpteenth Time But Back In No Time.
-pagghers
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 08:05:38 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com (paghat)
Pam
work by any stretch and I know of quite a few that also guarantee their plant material.
Unfortunately, those with the work ethic of which you speak are much less common and
are always booked many months in advance.
As both a landscape designer and a nurseryperson, I have dealt with both. Guess which
type I favor? BTW, both my nursery and myself guarantee the plant material we sell or
have installed, providing installation was done according to specified methods, which
in my area, includes removal of the wrappings.
Don't suppose you operate in my neck of the woods (PNW)? I could always use a few more
good landscape contractors to install my designs. :-))
Pam - gardengal
Ann
>Wow, impressive rant, ratgirl. Let's see - you've called me a liar,
>self-aggrandizing, foolhardy, non-accredited, amateurish, full of shit, a
>loser, a fool, an idiot and implied that I was an anal retentive neutral.
>Quite an assortment of insults in that little work of art. Remarkable, since
>this diatribe is the result of you remarking on something of which you have no
>first-hand knowledge: to wit, proper tree planting procedures and
>horticulture. Your responses are quickly deteriorating into unintelligible
>ravings and are pretty tiresome to boot.
>
>BTU, if you can add reading to your skill bank, you would notice that I never
>called you illiterate, only those who can't spell. If you wish to be added to
>their numbers, fine with me.
>
>Hey, I'll be the first to say I'm an idiot......I'm an idiot for bothering to
>respond to you. And I'll have to admit it's pretty idiotic to attempt to have
>any kind of intelligent dialogue with someone who has no idea what they are
>talking about. But I learn fast - I'll save my "lies and self aggrandizing"
>for a more worthy opponent. John, are you up for it?
(standing up and applauging) Bravo, Pam!
Ann
History has nothing to do with it. It was said in the context of
Looney Tunes, which, now that I think of it, is an insult to all the
great cartoon characters to lump you in with them. I apologize to
Bugs and friends.
paghat
ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> Now I'm done.
Fibs, fibs.
> Bahahahaha.
You mispelled banana.
> Go take some xanax.
Drugs & cartoons. Your world is so tiny & circumscribed you can't even
come up with a sensible insult.
> You need to calm down.
Take two Honesty Pills & call me in the morning.
-paggers
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 12:46:58 -0700, BADSPAMB...@my-deja.com
(paghat) wrote:
>
> >In article <2kalgt0f1dsceplon...@4ax.com>,
> >ani...@animaux.net0 wrote:
> >
> >> What hospital are you writing from? Boy you have a LOT of free time.
> >
> >You too, AND a propensity to contradict yourself (i mean lie) O Ms. I'm
> >Done For The Umpteenth Time But Back In No Time.
> >
> >-paggers
Elaine Follansbee
Pam wrote:
> Please, Elaine, I was writing in broad generalities. Not *all* landscapers do shoddy
> work by any stretch and I know of quite a few that also guarantee their plant material.
> Unfortunately, those with the work ethic of which you speak are much less common and
> are always booked many months in advance.
>
> As both a landscape designer and a nurseryperson, I have dealt with both. Guess which
> type I favor? BTW, both my nursery and myself guarantee the plant material we sell or
> have installed, providing installation was done according to specified methods, which
> in my area, includes removal of the wrappings.
>
> Don't suppose you operate in my neck of the woods (PNW)? I could always use a few more
> good landscape contractors to install my designs. :-))
>
> Pam - gardengal
>
Thanks for your reply Pam.
I wasn't terribly overwrought by your comment :-), just felt that I should step in,
in defense of the many contractors who DO take pride in their work... One negative seems
to invariably be worth 20 positives in the mind's eye.
All of the professions here debated are hampered by a common handicap in our area:
unskilled (often not very bright) work force. The boss/owner might be knowledgable enough,
but needs to have bionic ears and eyes to limit the mayhem of one would-be "expert"
crewmember. Unfortunately the current labor market is such that being a choosy employer
isn't an option. (Not an excuse, just a possible explanation for some of the bird-brained
recommendations related here on occasion).
You have the job and experience that I'd dearly love to have. Although I have a MS in
plant physiology (at a cellular and biochemical level), am the daughter of a greenhouse
grower (pelargonium, hostas and orchids especially) and am married to a landscaper, I
consider myself no more than a very frustrated home gardener with connections, but no free
time! I work in microbiology, because someone in the household needs a non-seasonal job
with health insurance.....
We live in New England - I think we might be just a wee bit out of your range ;-)
Thank you for your many contributions,
Elaine
Barb
> Hi,
>
> I am new to gardening, and very inexperienced. I just bought an Andromeda
> bush, the root ball is in a burlap sack. Should I remove it when planting?
> Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance, Ed
No need to remove the burlap, it will rot (assuming natural burlap).
Remove nails or staples holding the burlap in place. Also make sure
none of the burlap is above ground level because it may create a wick
effect and dry out your plant quicker.
garden-quack
remove the burlap. If it is natural it doesn't hurt to take it off. If its not it can kill
the plant by root bounding it within the ball.
quack