Debate Poll

[johng]

I never knew you ever posted there, I must have missed it.
Will

That's funny because I was the only American winner of one of your contests, I have/had a blog there, and Robert Stevens asked to include one of my posts from there in his book... In your defense you were probably too busy bickering on another forum to pay attention to any of those details! In fact, if one of the over zealous moderators there had not chastised me in a private email for posting on another forum I might still post there.

John

 

[Anonymous User]

That's funny because I was the only American winner of one of your contests, I have/had a blog there, and Robert Stevens asked to include one of my posts from there in his book...

Not really funny at all, considering that you use a Pseudonym here. One can not expect to be recognized when they post under different names on different forums.

In your defense you were probably too busy bickering on another forum to pay attention to any of those details!

This is just a personal slam meant to incite and really has no place in this discussion.

In fact, if one of the over zealous moderators there had not chastised me in a private email for posting on another forum I might still post there.

I am truly sorry to hear about that and I apologize on behalf of KoB for the actions of this person. I wish you would have notified another mod about this at the time. If you read any of the "other resources" threads in any of the article forums there, you will notice that KoB encourages readers to go to other forums or sites where information can be found pertaining to bonsai. You will also notice that we do not require people to be members in order to read content or view pictures, and we do not even require people to be members to participate in our contests.



Congratulations on your win and also on being having a post from KoB included in Robert's upcoming book, "Mission of Transformation."




Will

 

[agraham]

I'm sorry Will,but you are not blameless.I don't think you necessarily mean to incite(I could be wrong),but your responses and challenging attitude can be very abrasive.For example........in the colander/strainer/pond basket thread,Chris made a point and stated clearly that the use of strainers and pond baskets limit the size of tree.I understood exactly what he meant.And,I agree with him.

You on the other hand tried to tell him what he said,and you twisted it to ....Will said....quote...."You made the statement that screen sided planters are only great for smaller trees, implying that the same benefits they are used for would not apply to larger trees. This is a false assumption, the benefits do not magically disappear depending on tree size, screen sided planters will produce fine feeder roots on all sized trees, roots will still be air-pruned, and roots will still be forced to grow closer to the trunk as opposed to circling a pot."...end quote

The fact is,he made no comment at all concerning screen sided planters.He stated very clearly that he was talking about pond baskets and strainers and you still wouldn't let it go.........Again, Will said ...quote..."This may be what you meant Chris, but what you said was "...is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." (Post #55)

still quoting Will....
"I disagreed and said that screen sided planters are effective for all sized trees and that the benefits of such do not magically disappear on larger trees. For fine root development the ground or grow boxes are not more effective than screen sided planters, no matter what size the tree."..end quote

He said what he said.You even quoted him twice and then tried to tell him he had said something entirely different.Perhaps it is your defensiveness and persecution complex that drove you to respond in such a manner.Most people I know would have apologized for misreading or misunderstanding not only his written word but the meaning and intent of those words.

Walter Pall can claim that people are following you around from site to site just to attack you.You can feel personally attacked every time some one disagrees with you.You can claim innocence in the bickering and you can assume that everyone who tells you to ignore your detractors believes that you never instigate.That's fine.But I don't think any of those claims or assumptions are correct.

There's a saying I see often, concerning "attacking the messenger instead of the message".I'd inform you that there are times when the messenger is so invested in his point that he inadvertently becomes part of the message.

I have a feeling you will take this as a slam of some sort.It is not meant to be.Just a reality check.

andy

 

[cascade]

Sandbox

That's funny because I was the only American winner of one of your contests, I have/had a blog there, and Robert Stevens asked to include one of my posts from there in his book... In your defense you were probably too busy bickering on another forum to pay attention to any of those details! In fact, if one of the over zealous moderators there had not chastised me in a private email for posting on another forum I might still post there.

John

John,

I have noticed you were not posting any more and I am sorry for what ever happened.You are describing us as 'over zealous moderators' and I am not sure I understand.
I don't want to start another discussion here considering the fact that we are referring to another forum which is not in Bnut's interest.Please,if there is a problem in the future with a certain individual,don't iron all of us over the same board cuz it hurts.
I always value your opinion and your trees and would be glad to see you "back".

-dorothy

 

[Anonymous User]

I'm sorry Will,but you are not blameless.I don't think you necessarily mean to incite(I could be wrong),but your responses and challenging attitude can be very abrasive.For example........in the colander/strainer/pond basket thread,Chris made a point and stated clearly that the use of strainers and pond baskets limit the size of tree.I understood exactly what he meant.And,I agree with him.

You on the other hand tried to tell him what he said,and you twisted it ....

Andy,

Good example, thank you. Maybe by dissecting your example, we can better understand the perceptions (or misconceptions) about these debates.

You said above that Chris stated clearly that the use of strainers and pond baskets limit the size of tree, yet as the quotes below show, he meant something other than what he said, a fact that, when finally admitted, ended the debate.

I did not twist his words at any time, in fact I quoted his words exactly each time I responded and I resent the implication. Chris changed what he said toward the end, explaining well what he meant to say and the conversation then moved forward.

In that thread, Chris came in on page six for the first time and made a statement that, as worded, was untrue. Below is actual quotes from the discussion, in order, including another quote from a member who also pointed out that Chris's statement was untrue.

Please point out in the example you used where my responses and challenging attitude was very abrasive (quotes below) and please also point out where I twisted his words. I feel I was very polite, direct and to the point, but polite (please and thank you's even). The discussion was a good one, all the way up until page six and even then, in between my resoponses to Chris, the discussion went forward.

Could it be that your example isn't half as bad as you perceive?

One constraint not mentioned in any of the articles or in this thread, as far as I can tell, is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective...

I'm sorry, I disagree.

No matter what the size of the tree is, nothing beats a screen sided planter for creating fine feeder roots close to the trunk. Growing in the ground will certainly not produce this quality or quantity of feeder roots as quickly with so little effort. Certainly root pruning while in the ground can accomplish this, but when roots are pruned, the growth is slowed down, defeating the purpose of having it in the ground to begin with.

Screen sided planters are not for rapid growth and I do not believe anyone has claimed such in this thread. The ground is best for that, followed by growing boxes. Again, no matter what the size of the tree may be...

Sorry I have to quote myself, I was speaking strictly to strainers and pond baskets, with no reference to larger grow boxes, screen sided or not. Show me some larger trees from strainers and grow baskets.

You words were, "One constraint not mentioned in any of the articles or in this thread, as far as I can tell, is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." clearly referring to both screen sided planters AND grow boxes.

You made the statement that screen sided planters are only great for smaller trees, implying that the same benefits they are used for would not apply to larger trees. This is a false assumption, the benefits do not magically disappear depending on tree size, screen sided planters will produce fine feeder roots on all sized trees, roots will still be air-pruned, and roots will still be forced to grow closer to the trunk as opposed to circling a pot.

You recommended that it would be more effective for larger trees to be in the ground as compared to screen sided planters...more effective for what exactly? You also mentioned it would be better for them in grow boxes as compared to screen sided planters, better for what exactly? Please explain.

This is the kind of thing that drives people away. I clearly stated that pond baskets and strainers tend to limit the size of tree you can achieve. The words were strainers and pond baskets. Larger boxes or planters or growing in the ground are needed for larger trees, and who can say exactly at what size larger trees become larger trees?

Furthermore, who cares? It was a simple observation. The size of the container constrains the size of the tree to some extent. Can we find fault with this generalization?

Notice the change in tone here?

I agree.

This may be what you meant Chris, but what you said was "...is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." (Post #55)

I disagreed and said that screen sided planters are effective for all sized trees and that the benefits of such do not magically disappear on larger trees. For fine root development the ground or grow boxes are not more effective than screen sided planters, no matter what size the tree.

I care, you posted something that was false in my opinion and I corrected it. Attempting to change what you said is not the same as supporting your statement. There is no fault with the generalization "that the size of the container constrains the size of the tree to some extent" at all, but this is not what you said. You plainly stated that "For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." This is simply not true, I'm sorry.

Do you even understand how petty this sounds?

Again, a change in tone.

I don't find refuting a questionable statement petty at all, in fact this is what keeps forums honest. I take it you will neither logically support your statement as quoted above nor admit your error or mistake?

For the record Chris, I have kept this straight to the point, only debating a direct statement made by you, in response you have said that This is the kind of thing that drives people away, Who cares anyway, and suggested I was petty. Can we keep the discussion focused on the subject please?....

Chris,

You jumped in this conversation on post #55, whilst you might have been following the conversation in the background. The conversation with regards to modified pond baskets started on the second page. Large trees in modified pond baskets also took place between Graydon and I.

Someone else calls them screen sided containers, which is a better term IMO. I guess I'll have to get use to it.

Based on the context of your original post (#55) I took it that "pond baskets, colanders, and whatever else" was only good for small trees and seedlings. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I would also check out a similar discussion taking place at the Vault (Pinus Envy) where Tom explained it best.

As far as deletions are concerned I don't believe there was any, well at least not on my part. Paranoia is a curable disease you know

I was not alone obviously in taking Chris's words as being untrue.

Yes, but sarcasm is not . I know there were no deletions. I thought my post was fairly clear, I didn't say "and whatever else," I said "strainers and pond baskets" and I think someone would have to work pretty hard to twist that into more than it was.

Yes, you said "strainers and pond baskets".

No one is debating what you said, only that what you implied while saying it was wrong.

Specifically, you said "... that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective."

This is not correct. Effectiveness is not loss at a certain size.

No twist here...it is what it is.

John, thank you for the post and photos. As I was trying to say but apparently was unable to communicate clearly, colanders and this size pond basket are best for shohin trees or slightly larger. That's not to say that screen-sided planters can't be advantageous for much larger trees, just that the size of the container determines its usefulness.

Would you agree or am I completely in bizarro world?

Now Chris changes what he said and implied to something that is true and makes a world more sense.

Thank you for letting us know what you meant to say, this is a far better statement than what you actually said.

It goes without saying that a pot that is 3" is suitable for small trees, a pot that is 12" is suitable for medium trees, and so on......

Screen sided planters however, are suitable and beneficial for all sizes of bonsai, a person is not limited by the size of the tree at all, only by the size of the container, which truthfully, considering that screen sided planters come in all shapes and sizes and can be custom made, presents no limitation at all.

I'm glad that is cleared up,

Yeah, thanks for being so big about it.

Thanks for noticing.

 

[cray13]

The truth

Ok. I've only been reading bonsai forums for about three years now and I've finally reached a point where I'm ready to share an observation.

As some have previously suggested it is clear that unmoderated forums quickly become useless. Of course the other extreme is just as bad. I think Blogs can be very interesting if the blogger is willing to invest in daily updates... much like Mr. Pall does with his "blog". However, Mr. Pall is a bonsai professional who has accumulated enough material to allow him to post new images of his work almost daily.

Anyway... back to my observation.

I check BNut about once a week now just to see what's going on. Here is what I observe... Will has posted at least once on every thread. If the title of the thread interests me I check it out. The content of the last post is almost always involving Will defending himself or some other disagreement about what someone else meant to say.

In the past I've reserved judgement and once or twice almost got caught up in the mud-slinging. After a couple of years now I feel comfortable saying that negativity follows Will where ever he goes. The only common variable in each case is Will. Yes, there are others who help Will along and you might say he has a nemisis or two (Chris??), but if you watch closely you'll see a pattern. Will has a knack for keeping the mud flying. He has an opinion on every topic and differing opinions are most often attacked either passively or directly.

The rest of us end up with a useless forum that we'll eventually ignore. I'm at that point now. If Will made the last post on a thread. I generally ignore that thread... because I already know what it contains.

I'm sure this post will get Will's attention... not something I want at all. This isn't an attack just an observation and unfortunately a reality. I've never met Will and really can't say I know enough to judge his character. However, at this point BNut has become useless to me simply because some people can't get past their ego's. Will is who he is and the blame for the negativity that follows him is irrelevant, the simple fact is any content with his input unfortunately quickly becomes useless.

 

[agraham]

Andy,

Good example, thank you. Maybe by dissecting your example, we can better understand the perceptions (or misconceptions) about these debates.

You said above that Chris stated clearly that the use of strainers and pond baskets limit the size of tree, yet as the quotes below show, he meant something other than what he said, a fact that, when finally admitted, ended the debate.

I did not twist his words at any time, in fact I quoted his words exactly each time I responded and I resent the implication. Chris changed what he said toward the end, explaining well what he meant to say and the conversation then moved forward.

In that thread, Chris came in on page six for the first time and made a statement that, as worded, was untrue. Below is actual quotes from the discussion, in order, including another quote from a member who also pointed out that Chris's statement was untrue.

Please point out in the example you used where my responses and challenging attitude was very abrasive (quotes below) and please also point out where I twisted his words. I feel I was very polite, direct and to the point, but polite (please and thank you's even). The discussion was a good one, all the way up until page six and even then, in between my resoponses to Chris, the discussion went forward.

Could it be that your example isn't half as bad as you perceive?











Notice the change in tone here?




Again, a change in tone.




I was not alone obviously in taking Chris's words as being untrue.






Now Chris changes what he said and implied to something that is true and makes a world more sense.

Will....About all I can do is chuckle and shake my head in response to your retort....you just don't get it.I'm sorry.

andy

 

[rlist]

at this point BNut has become useless to me

Agreed. Maybe the bartender should go back to his own bar and focus on bringing in customers instead of participating in the antics at another bar and chasing all the customers away...

 

[Anonymous User]

After a couple of years now I feel comfortable saying that negativity follows Will where ever he goes. The only common variable in each case is Will.

Well, here we go....

In rebuttal....

the truth is that I do not really participate in bonsai forums anymore. I am p....d off to see a handful of paranoid lunatics chasing Will all over the forums and seeing Will readily giving them a chance to do so.....

Taking this into consideration, I imagine that I am indeed a common variable. You fail to mention that the same 5 or 6 people also follow me wherever I go and it is the same few I usually defend against.

I belong to six bonsai forums, let's just take AoB, KoB, and IBC as examples, could you point out the negativity that followed me to any of those sites? Please?

I check BNut about once a week now just to see what's going on. Here is what I observe... Will has posted at least once on every thread. If the title of the thread interests me I check it out. The content of the last post is almost always involving Will defending himself....

Thank you.



Will

 

[Anonymous User]

Will....About all I can do is chuckle and shake my head in response to your retort....you just don't get it.I'm sorry.

No, I get it just fine Andy.

I asked you to explain your words above and to "please point out in the example you used where my responses and challenging attitude was very abrasive ... and please also point out where I twisted his words."

You made a claim and I am very interested in seeing exactly what you based it on, if anything. Please take a moment and support you accusations so that we may all learn from them.

Agreed. Maybe the bartender should go back to his own bar and focus on bringing in customers instead of participating in the antics at another bar and chasing all the customers away...

This added nothing to the discussion and only serves as an example of the very points I have been making. It was off topic and meant to incite.



Will

 

[agraham]

OK Will....I'll explain.I thought it was pretty clear..but I'll try again.

Chris said...strainers and pond baskets limited the size of trees.That is true.

You said he he said something about screen sided grow boxes.He didn't.

You then quoted him again and said he meant what he didn't say.

So basically you disagreed with something that he didn't even say.Why?

When he explained what he said and what he meant,you still insisted that he had said something else...even while quoting him accurately,you insisted that he had said something completely different?

Maybe it's me that doesn't get it."Strainers and pond baskets" doesn't translate to me into screen sided grow boxes.Not even in the context of the thread.The fact that Rick understood Chris' statement in the same manner as you did,does not make either of you correct.After Chris explained again what he meant(which coincidently was exactly what he said), that part of the discussion should have been dropped.You tend to have to have the last word.....a habit I find hard to break myself .....and its a habit that can be annoying to others....believe me...I know.

You were just plain wrong on this one Will.Admitting a misunderstanding on your part would have gone a long ways towards continuing the discussion in a civilized manner.Of course,being unwilling to admit when you are wrong is also a difficult habit to break....I work on that one all the time.

The fact that Chris entered into the conversation after a few posts had been made does not invalidate his statement.

The fact that Chris further explained what he meant in order to placate your sense of honor/pride just indicates he was more interested in the conversation than the argument.His original statement needed no further explanation.It was clear and concise....Unless one was looking to disagree.

I'll leave it at .....this is the way I saw it.I really don't expect you to agree with it.I'll let you have the last word(I imagine),but remember,I,too,am always right in my own mind .

andy

 

[Anonymous User]

Andy,

Please see the actual quotes from that thread...

Chris did not at first say "strainers and pond baskets limited the size of trees" as you claimed, what he actually said, word for word, was "One constraint not mentioned in any of the articles or in this thread, as far as I can tell, is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective..." - post #55, page 6, his first post in that thread. It wasn't until he was retracting his first post that he made the statement you quoted, near the end of the debate.

This first statement, as made, was false, a fact attested to by others. It was far from being clear and concise as you claim, unless it was meant exactly how it was posted, in which case, again, it was incorrect.

I quoted Chris's own words in almost every single post in that thread I made to avoid confusion. I directly quoted the posts in the post I made above in this thread, nowhere did I twist his words, instead I used his words exactly. On top of all this, I was never abrasive as you claimed, in fact I was rather polite.

Please do not twist my words, the written record is there for all to see and posted above for reference. I was not abrasive as you claimed, I did not twist his words as you claimed, in fact at the end, Chris finally said what he meant to say, which was totally different from what his first post implied. I have not yet seen you produce an example of where I was abrasive or of when I twisted his words, so I am assuming you have nothing to support your accusations and based on that, I must ask that you stop claiming such.


Note to all:

Funny how this turned into another bash thread, isn't it? When asked for solutions, all that came forth was finger pointing, accusations, and blame placing, mostly incorrect at that.

Here's a tip that comes in handy, and one I will be using again myself.....click on the person's name who you don't like reading posts from, who you feel offers nothing to the forum, then click on "ignore this user." Poof, problem sovled, you no longer will see there posts or threads. Simple, easy, even fun at times.

Of course if you can't ignore that person, them maybe they ain't as bad as you thought afterall.


Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

Andy,

Please see the actual quotes from that thread...

Chris did not at first say "strainers and pond baskets limited the size of trees" as you claimed, what he actually said, word for word, was "One constraint not mentioned in any of the articles or in this thread, as far as I can tell, is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective..." - post #55, page 6, his first post in that thread. It wasn't until he was retracting his first post that he made the statement you quoted, near the end of the debate.

This first statement, as made, was false, a fact attested to by others. It was far from being clear and concise as you claim, unless it was meant exactly how it was posted, in which case, again, it was incorrect.

I quoted Chris's own words in almost every single post in that thread I made to avoid confusion. I directly quoted the posts in the post I made above in this thread, nowhere did I twist his words, instead I used his words exactly. On top of all this, I was never abrasive as you claimed, in fact I was rather polite.

Please do not twist my words, the written record is there for all to see and posted above for reference. I was not abrasive as you claimed, I did not twist his words as you claimed, in fact at the end, Chris finally said what he meant to say, which was totally different from what his first post implied. I have not yet seen you produce an example of where I was abrasive or of when I twisted his words, so I am assuming you have nothing to support your accusations and based on that, I must ask that you stop claiming such.


Note to all:

Funny how this turned into another bash thread, isn't it? When asked for solutions, all that came forth was finger pointing, accusations, and blame placing, mostly incorrect at that.

Here's a tip that comes in handy, and one I will be using again myself.....click on the person's name who you don't like reading posts from, who you feel offers nothing to the forum, then click on "ignore this user." Poof, problem sovled, you no longer will see there posts or threads. Simple, easy, even fun at times.

Of course if you can't ignore that person, them maybe they ain't as bad as you thought afterall.


Will

I apologize to everyone who has had to watch all this for jumping in. So much for posting when my blood sugar is low.

Will has always been very adept at quoting someone and twisting their meaning to have a straw man to set himself up against. I realize he does it to me for specific reasons, and have owned my own culpabilitiy in the matter. It was I who outed his criminal record which seems to have been an overblown reaction to a more technical infraction. In this I not only wronged Will, I violated my own beliefs about that system and who I am. So I understand why he likes to bait me to make me bite and thereby hurt my own reputation.

Will did not misquote me, but as Andy has said, he purposely twisted the thoughts to say something I did not say. So I tried to set the record straight, and in fact kept my cool through the entire thread until this one came along and tried to set me up as "bickering" without ever mentioning a name. The fact that that was one purpose of this poll is evidenced by the quoting of that thread by Andy in this one. He knew the score.

So I am going back to what I do best--posting what I know about bonsai from actually having done it, warts and all, and from having had some excellent training. I will also go on with doing workshops locally and having fun with those who have trees they want to improve together.

 

[AndyWilson]

So I am going back to what I do best--posting what I know about bonsai from actually having done it.

Man, i wish everyone would do this. This sentiment is spot on.

 

[No it's not...]

Chris said...strainers and pond baskets limited the size of trees.That is true.

andy

For what it's worth, that's exactly how I interpreted post #55 in that thread...

 

[Anonymous User]

Will has always been very adept at quoting someone and twisting their meaning to have a straw man to set himself up against.

You have said this before and I have yet to see an example. Why don't you take the time to actually post one and put this to rest once and for all.

So I understand why he likes to bait me to make me bite and thereby hurt my own reputation.

Chris can you show us one example where I baited you? Just one?

Will did not misquote me, but as Andy has said, he purposely twisted the thoughts to say something I did not say.

Again, please show me where I twisted your words. Words, not thoughts, I am not a mind reader, I can only base my own beliefs on the words you post, which you admit were not misquoted.

So I tried to set the record straight, and in fact kept my cool through the entire thread until this one came along and tried to set me up as "bickering" without ever mentioning a name. The fact that that was one purpose of this poll is evidenced by the quoting of that thread by Andy in this one. He knew the score.

This post was not about the strainer thread at all, your name or that thread never came up in any of the discussion until Andy brought it up, making claims he can not support that I was abrasive and that I twisted your words. The truth is hard to swallow, but it is the truth never-the-less.

There is no straw men, no twisting, no abrasiveness, just attempts to make something into something it wasn't. Chris, I challenge you, like I did Andy, to back up your baseless claims here...I expect the same results.

So I am going back to what I do best--posting what I know about bonsai from actually having done it, warts and all, and from having had some excellent training. I will also go on with doing workshops locally and having fun with those who have trees they want to improve together.

We all have actually done it Chris, you're not by any means the only one that creates bonsai on this or any other forum. And training is only as good as the product created from it, the same people who trained the classical artists such as Monet, Picasso, and Rembrandt also trained many others that never produced a single noteworthy work. Training by no means guarantees quality, just education and even that is dependent on the students ability to absorb the knowledge and having the talent to use it.



Will

 

[agraham]

Will....quote..."This post was not about the strainer thread at all, your name or that thread never came up in any of the discussion until Andy brought it up, making claims he can not support that I was abrasive and that I twisted your words. The truth is hard to swallow, but it is the truth never-the-less."...unquote

Will,in the strainer thread....quote..."You recommended that it would be more effective for larger trees to be in the ground as compared to screen sided planters...more effective for what exactly? You also mentioned it would be better for them in grow boxes as compared to screen sided planters, "

He did not suggest that.He specifically said strainers and pond baskets..you twisted his words.For that matter,you completely fabricated them.That is abrasive and worse in my opinion.As you say...the truth is hard to swallow,but it is the truth none the less.



andy

 

[Vance Wood]

Ok. I've only been reading bonsai forums for about three years now and I've finally reached a point where I'm ready to share an observation.

As some have previously suggested it is clear that unmoderated forums quickly become useless. Of course the other extreme is just as bad. I think Blogs can be very interesting if the blogger is willing to invest in daily updates... much like Mr. Pall does with his "blog". However, Mr. Pall is a bonsai professional who has accumulated enough material to allow him to post new images of his work almost daily.

Anyway... back to my observation.

I check BNut about once a week now just to see what's going on. Here is what I observe... Will has posted at least once on every thread. If the title of the thread interests me I check it out. The content of the last post is almost always involving Will defending himself or some other disagreement about what someone else meant to say.

In the past I've reserved judgement and once or twice almost got caught up in the mud-slinging. After a couple of years now I feel comfortable saying that negativity follows Will where ever he goes. The only common variable in each case is Will. Yes, there are others who help Will along and you might say he has a nemisis or two (Chris??), but if you watch closely you'll see a pattern. Will has a knack for keeping the mud flying. He has an opinion on every topic and differing opinions are most often attacked either passively or directly.

The rest of us end up with a useless forum that we'll eventually ignore. I'm at that point now. If Will made the last post on a thread. I generally ignore that thread... because I already know what it contains.

I'm sure this post will get Will's attention... not something I want at all. This isn't an attack just an observation and unfortunately a reality. I've never met Will and really can't say I know enough to judge his character. However, at this point BNut has become useless to me simply because some people can't get past their ego's. Will is who he is and the blame for the negativity that follows him is irrelevant, the simple fact is any content with his input unfortunately quickly becomes useless.

The question you have to ask yourself, and I am assuming that you have the intelligence to discern the difference, who makes these threads useless; Will or those who seek to tear him down at every opportunity? There is a history there to be sure, but that does not mean Will has nothing to say. Check out AoB and KoB web sites. Will was big time involved in setting up those two sites. Read some of the articles and see what you think. Some of the biggest names in bonsai post there. Have you checked to see where Walter Pall's blog resides? You might want to look at that as well. I appreciate your observations but you seem to focus your ire and blame on Will which is not the case.

On the flip side of that point what if any contribution to the good and welfare of bonsai has any of those who gang slam Will ever made?

 

[Anonymous User]

Will....quote..."This post was not about the strainer thread at all, your name or that thread never came up in any of the discussion until Andy brought it up, making claims he can not support that I was abrasive and that I twisted your words. The truth is hard to swallow, but it is the truth never-the-less."...unquote

Will,in the strainer thread....quote..."You recommended that it would be more effective for larger trees to be in the ground as compared to screen sided planters...more effective for what exactly? You also mentioned it would be better for them in grow boxes as compared to screen sided planters, "

He did not suggest that.He specifically said strainers and pond baskets..you twisted his words.For that matter,you completely fabricated them.That is abrasive and worse in my opinion.As you say...the truth is hard to swallow,but it is the truth none the less.

The full quote is as follows:

Chris,

You words were, "One constraint not mentioned in any of the articles or in this thread, as far as I can tell, is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." clearly referring to both screen sided planters AND grow boxes.

You made the statement that screen sided planters are only great for smaller trees, implying that the same benefits they are used for would not apply to larger trees. This is a false assumption, the benefits do not magically disappear depending on tree size, screen sided planters will produce fine feeder roots on all sized trees, roots will still be air-pruned, and roots will still be forced to grow closer to the trunk as opposed to circling a pot.

You recommended that it would be more effective for larger trees to be in the ground as compared to screen sided planters...more effective for what exactly? You also mentioned it would be better for them in grow boxes as compared to screen sided planters, better for what exactly? Please explain.

1) Strainers and pond baskets are screen sided planters, as are Vance's pots and any other container with screened sides. strainers and pond baskets come in all sizes, I have seen pond baskets in sizes up to 10 gallons.

2) The point being debated was not the name of the screen sided planter, but instead Chris's statement that "For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." Since the main advantage of screen sided planters is the fine root development, there is absolutely no way that grow boxes or the ground could be as effective. Chris's statement, as he worded it is false, I was not the only one to say this.

3) If he was talking about the size of the containers, he did not say so, but even that is incorrect because larger sized strainers and pond baskets are available. Hence his statement that "strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees" is incorrect, they are actually great for all sized trees. If Chris would have posted "One constraint not mentioned in any of the articles or in this thread, as far as I can tell, is that strainers and pond baskets are great for smaller trees. For larger trees, a manufactured large sized screen sided planter is needed because the strainers and pond baskets, due to their size, place a limit on the size of tree that can be put into them." (my words bolded) I would have agreed. Instead he said "For larger trees, grow boxes or growing in the ground will be much more effective." This is a false assumption.

4) My statement "You recommended that it would be more effective for larger trees to be in the ground as compared to screen sided planters...more effective for what exactly? You also mentioned it would be better for them in grow boxes as compared to screen sided planters, better for what exactly? Please explain." was certainly not twisting or fabercating words, I asked him a politely worded question and he had every option to clarify at that point. In fact, later in the thread he did clarify what he meant to say, as oppossed to what was actually said.

5) My comments in that thread, including the one you partially quoted were not abrasive at all, I was kind, polite, and stuck to the point being made at all times. There was no insulting, name calling, or attacking on my part, just a simple quest for truth. Why is it that you call sticking to the subject and remaining focused on the truth abrasive?

That seems to be hard to swallow indeed.



Will

 

[Anonymous User]

Have you checked to see where Walter Pall's blog resides? You might want to look at that as well.

Correction:

Walter Pall's blog can be found at http://walter-pall-bonsai.blogspot.com it is not hosted at the KoB Blog Collection. However, it was Walter who indirectly gave us the idea for the collection.

We host such people as Morten Albek, Rob Kempinski, Min Hsuan Lo, Hans Van Meer, Wolfgang Putz, Andy Smith, Mauro Stemberger, Robert Steven, Budi Sulistyo, and many others, but Walter has his own remarkable blog, and considering the incredible amount of traffic he gets, it may be a good thing.



Will