Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Sacha
writes No, Alan, I'm sorry if this irks you but no, I will not. This group had a reputation for excellence at one time. The advice it gave was good, impartial and carefully considered. If one person was contradicted by another, there was no display of fireworks and histrionics but more usually, "do you think so?" "you might be right" "I don't agree" and always with good reasons given even allowing for the odd tetchy moment. The more the kill file is employed the more the disrupter wins the day because members do not see what is going on in their name. That is *precisely* why urg has reached this all time low. Too many long time urglers don't see what is happening. Sacha - unfortunately the current disruption to urg is not one sided. La Puce responds to requests for information and you and some others point out her inaccuracies. That in itself is fair enough but you and I both know that it is frequently done in such a way as to elicit a reaction - just as La Puce uses text that she knows will cause you to react. There are now a few people who post regularly on this ng who seem to enjoy annoying each other which is, at best, pointless and has all too frequently descended into prolonged bickering. Where someone makes a post that is considered to be incorrect all that is necessary is to post a response indicating an alternative viewpoint - without raising the temperature - and then move on - both views are expressed and it is up to the reader to decide which they choose to accept. No individual posting to a ng posts in the name of other 'members' of the ng. Everyone is entitled to make known their opinion (hopefully in a manner that is not going to intentionally annoy others) but it is only their opinion. Killfiles do have a use and judicious use may help restore urg to its former more pleasant self. -- Robert |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "La Puce" wrote in message ups.com... On 13 Mar, 18:20, "Sue" wrote: One of the very earliest I remember was about rhododendrons and how long they take to flower from seed. See the thread titled 'shrub ID please' from November 2005. Oh I remember indeed! It was a plant ID - it was a rhodo and Ruppert thought it was a skimmia. Then he realised it wasn't. I then thought about potash since it didn't flower and because it was a rhodo from seed and it was very young I did mentioned that it took 2 to 3 years to flower from seeds, which they do. No they don't. Cutting from mature plants resume flowering in 2-3 years. Web references suggest that seedlings only flower when mature, normally a minimum of 3-5 years in ideal propagation and growing conditions pk |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Mar, 14:15, "p.k." wrote:
it was a rhodo from seed and it was very young I did mentioned that it took 2 to 3 years to flower from seeds, which they do. No they don't. Cutting from mature plants resume flowering in 2-3 years. FROM SEEDS!! Do escuse me for shouting everyone. The windows are open and spring is wafting through. Glorious. I felt like being loud ![]() Web references suggest that seedlings only flower when mature, normally a minimum of 3-5 years in ideal propagation and growing conditions FROM SEEDS please. What are you web references saying about the time scale (approx) for rhodo flowering from SEEDS? |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
La Puce wrote:
On 14 Mar, 14:15, "p.k." wrote: it was a rhodo from seed and it was very young I did mentioned that it took 2 to 3 years to flower from seeds, which they do. No they don't. Cutting from mature plants resume flowering in 2-3 years. FROM SEEDS!! Do escuse me for shouting everyone. The windows are open and spring is wafting through. Glorious. I felt like being loud ![]() Web references suggest that seedlings only flower when mature, normally a minimum of 3-5 years in ideal propagation and growing conditions FROM SEEDS please. What are you web references saying about the time scale (approx) for rhodo flowering from SEEDS? the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings a brief google give me loads of references to growing Rhodos form seed all suggesting at least 3 years with ideal propogation conditions. see; http://www.tjhsst.edu/~dhyatt/seeds.html which has "Rhododendrons can flower in 3 to 4 years from seed " http://www.victoriarhodo.ca/Archives/PropGrp.htm has "Growing rhodos from seeds poses different challenges and requires patience, because many years can go by before the first flowering" http://kanawhamastergardeners.homest...opagation.html has "Native deciduous azaleas, if watered and fertilized can produce limited flowers in 3 years from seed germination. I can't find any that suggest that 2-3 years is the norm for rododendron i'd be grateful for your sources that sugget 2-3 years, it would be intersting to know the techniques used pk |
#80
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote:
the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back into this at all. Thanks ![]() |
#81
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 14, 4:18 pm, "p.k." wrote:
I can't find any that suggest that 2-3 years is the norm for rododendron i'd be grateful for your sources that sugget 2-3 years, it would be intersting to know the techniques used pk- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thanks p.k. for that info I actually asked for some answers to Martin's posting but you have answered it here. It says on all the links you gave that it takes at least 3 years for seeds to flower which I think, for me is a bit long so I will go with cuttings and see what happens. Thanks Judith |
#82
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
La Puce wrote:
On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote: the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back into this at all. Thanks ![]() your frustration was, from my reading of the thread, that you got it wrong and were unwilling to take the guidance and advice of those more knowledgably and experienced. & you insisted in the face of all evidence and argument that you were right. I have presented well sourced and referenced information indicating 3-4 years minimum from seed and . I am genuinely interested to know where you got your original information that from seed Rhododendron takes 2-3 years to flower. pk |
#83
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 14, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 09:59:36 -0700, "La Puce" wrote: On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote: the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back into this at all. Thanks ![]() Watch this http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk Did it remind you of cultural differences? Lovely, but I wish I knew how to turn the sound up!!! Judith |
#84
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 14, 5:46 pm, Martin wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 10:35:26 -0700, " wrote: On Mar 14, 5:10 pm, wrote: On 14 Mar 2007 09:59:36 -0700, "La Puce" wrote: On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote: the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back into this at all. Thanks ![]() Watch this http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk Did it remind you of cultural differences? Lovely, but I wish I knew how to turn the sound up!!! On your WinXP menu bar at the bottom of the screen is a loud speaker symbol/icon. If you click on that a volume level thing pops up. -- Martin- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - As usual, thank you!! Judith |
#85
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from " contains these words: On Mar 14, 4:18 pm, "p.k." wrote: I can't find any that suggest that 2-3 years is the norm for rododendron i'd be grateful for your sources that sugget 2-3 years, it would be intersting to know the techniques used Thanks p.k. for that info I actually asked for some answers to Martin's posting but you have answered it here. It says on all the links you gave that it takes at least 3 years for seeds to flower which I think, for me is a bit long so I will go with cuttings and see what happens. Thanks Judith Have you ever tried air-layering before, Judith? Air layering is by far the best method. Easy & trouble free. pk |
#86
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anne Jackson wrote:
Have you ever tried air-layering before, Judith? Air layering is by far the best method. Easy & trouble free. I've tried pegging down some of the lower branches, with some success, but not all rhoddies are co-operative enough to _have_ low branches! G Ah! There is "layering" and "air-layering" In the first you peg down in the second, well follow this link it expalins it far better thi I can: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/e.../airlayer.html pk |
#87
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "p.k." contains these words: Anne Jackson wrote: Have you ever tried air-layering before, Judith? Air layering is by far the best method. Easy & trouble free. I've tried pegging down some of the lower branches, with some success, but not all rhoddies are co-operative enough to _have_ low branches! G Ah! There is "layering" and "air-layering" In the first you peg down in the second, well follow this link it expalins it far better thi I can: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/e.../airlayer.html Hmmmm! Have you recently attempted to instruct your grandmother in the art of sucking eggs? Thanks for the unnecessary sarcasm. I won't bother next time pk |
#88
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Mar, 17:10, wrote:
Watch this http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk Did it remind you of cultural differences? LOL!! Marvelous. Ta ![]() |
#89
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Mar, 17:13, "p.k." wrote:
I have presented well sourced and referenced information indicating 3-4 years minimum from seed and . I am genuinely interested to know where you got your original information that from seed Rhododendron takes 2-3 years to flower. Are you a joke or something? Are you trying to drive me mad? ![]() what you have written. You first said that the discussion was about flowering period from cuttings. Then in another post it's from seeds. Then I said 2-3 years to flower from seeds, you reply it's 3-4 yeasrs, and you then ask me to show you evidence to support my theory that it's 2-3 years..... pk, I'm sorry but there's no clocks on a rhodo. If your books or google says to you it's around 3-4 years, and my reference says around 2-3 years, why don't we just agree that it's around 2-4 years and we go on with our lives? I need to go now, and watch paint dry. |
#90
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
La Puce wrote:
On 14 Mar, 17:13, "p.k." wrote: I have presented well sourced and referenced information indicating 3-4 years minimum from seed and . I am genuinely interested to know where you got your original information that from seed Rhododendron takes 2-3 years to flower. Are you a joke or something? Are you trying to drive me mad? ![]() what you have written. You first said that the discussion was about flowering period from cuttings. Then in another post it's from seeds. Then I said 2-3 years to flower from seeds, you reply it's 3-4 yeasrs, and you then ask me to show you evidence to support my theory that it's 2-3 years..... pk, I'm sorry but there's no clocks on a rhodo. If your books or google says to you it's around 3-4 years, and my reference says around 2-3 years, why don't we just agree that it's around 2-4 years and we go on with our lives? I need to go now, and watch paint dry. I've been observing your repeated spats with a number of people, only having brecome aware of the trouble in here quite recently. I thought I'd give you a chance... From your beligerent repsonses to very gentle probes, your and failure to support your "advice" with any sources I'm afraid i have to agree with the many posters who find your style objectionable. URG is about sharing and discussing not about propounding pet theories (your word) unsupported by evidence. Have a nice day. pk |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How to Get Access to Sub-Groups in rec.garden Using Google -- 2nd Try | Gardening | |||
Open-access: Recent papers published in "Notebooks on Geology" | Plant Science | |||
Access to journals? | Plant Science |