Psychologists have a word for what you’re doing here. It’s called “projection”.Most importantly, don’t listen to blow hards who want to bully you into adopting their conforming mantras.
Psychologists have a word for what you’re doing here. It’s called “projection”.Most importantly, don’t listen to blow hards who want to bully you into adopting their conforming mantras.
Uh, no, no one is calling anyone an idiot. No one is bullying anyone. Those are your words. Those who don't adhere to your "alternative" theory are showing you evidence that it's mostly wrong and misleading. Post some actual evidence of what you're saying. I have seen repeated, documented evidence otherwise. Chlorine and chloramines have an impact, but that impact is not big and soil recovers.It appears that some people are trying to say that if you don’t do it their way you are an idiot. Ignore them. Truth is chloramine/chlorine is bad for microbial/fungal growth. If you think that the levels in tap water are negligible, then use tap water. If you want to do everything you can to maximize microbial/fungal growth, remove chlorine/chloramine. It’s your choice. If you have strong mycelial growth and you use tap water with chloramine, it would be stronger without chloramine. Do whatever you want. Most importantly, don’t listen to blow hards who want to bully you into adopting their conforming mantras.
The irony is delicious.exactly what I expect from you, which is why I normally have you on ignore
I've always used tap water for my trees (30 years worth). Water Has chlorine, chloramine, etc. I have myc in oaks, pines, hornbeams. Oaks have mushroom growth every spring/summer into fall, as do the hornbeam. Pic below shows some of the latest 'shrooms on a live oak...Mushrooms are the surface expression of myc growth in the soil. At repotting all have extensive myc webbing in their root masses (LOTS OF IT
this is gold.The irony is delicious.
Spot on.Except "not toxic to plants" can be perfectly true yet still not the point.
Not everyone, actually quite few people are relying on the microbes that it does kill.
Those not relying on those microbes won't notice (only because it's deeply layered) their loss.
Those relying on those microbes will.....maybe.
Proof of mycorrhizae, loads of it in fact, maybe because so much is necessary to go out searching for the nitrogen left unavailable because of the death of the microbes.
Depends how you read it.
I don't claim to know everything about the subject because it's study is infant.
These claims of "proof" are terribly unscientific.
Sorce
absolutely zero of what i said is misleading. And, its not my theory. You do whatever you want. Im not a victim. More bull that you make up. Just becuase you say there is no appreciable diff in your mycellium doesnt mean there is none. so do whatever you want. Im glad you only want your trees to reach 95% of their potential. Some of us are after the extra 5%Uh, no, no one is calling anyone an idiot. No one is bullying anyone. Those are your words. Those who don't adhere to your "alternative" theory are showing you evidence that it's mostly wrong and misleading. Post some actual evidence of what you're saying. I have seen repeated, documented evidence otherwise. Chlorine and chloramines have an impact, but that impact is not big and soil recovers.
From that repeated proof and personal first-hand evidence over a few decades, I can say using tap water with chlorine and chloramines is of little consequence. No-- using water without both won't produce a noticeable stronger microbial response. If you want to prove us wrong, produce evidence to the contrary. I've seen extremely strong myc growth in many many trees after repeated repottings over a long period of time.
Most importantly, calling people "blowhards" and adopting a persecution complex won't change things.
So this isnt bullying???? Portraying me as someone who needs a Psychiatrist isnt defamatory? or asking if im aware that people dont water their trees with straight undiluted chloramine? GTFO.Psychologists have a word for what you’re doing here. It’s called “projection”.
With all due respect, your argument, and Scorce too, is quite shallow. You want your trees at 100% potential? Put it in a 100% controlled environment so the tree can grow in perfect ambient air temp, humidity, air movements, sun exposure and water for the particular species of tree. Water is just 1 aspect of the big picture. And where's the proof these chemicals causes such huge negative effect?Im glad you only want your trees to reach 95% of their potential. Some of us are after the extra 5%
I appreciate what you are saying very much. I was just speaking about chloramines. Not all the other aspects. I will unsuscribe from this thread to avoid further waste of everyones energy.With all due respect, your argument, and Scorce too, is quite shallow. You want your trees at 100% potential? Put it in a 100% controlled environment so the tree can grow in perfect ambient air temp, humidity, air movements, sun exposure and water for the particular species of tree. Water is just 1 aspect of the big picture. And where's the proof these chemicals causes such huge negative effect?
Anyways, as mentioned by your nemesis, proof is in the pudding lol. One can site info from anywhere but until proof is shown from experiments, it's just heresay no?
Absolutely yes, but I didn't feel like writing the paragraphs I planned to knowing no beginner is going to sit through reading 5 pages of chlorine argument to get to my lowly response. So I guess I am the problem here.@ZombieNick wouldn't realizing the path to the end of opposition be more relevant to the thread than say.......
So this isnt bullying???? Portraying me as someone who needs a Psychiatrist isnt defamatory? or asking if im aware that people dont water their trees with straight undiluted chloramine? GTFO.
I have never heard that about wiring, I was always told to practice, practice, practice. My experience is similar to yours, I started with lots of online stuff, then clubs, and now I finally have an instructor to take classes under regularly (which, for me, has helped tremendously). You are very close to me, are you in any local clubs?I would love to get input from those of you who have been doing Bonsai for sometime now. When you first started out, did you learn by reading, experimenting on nursery stock, both or other avenues ?
I am finding that there are different perspectives and beliefs on this and some with more rigid guidelines. I have found that some people get upset when you do something to a tree that may not have been very successful for some. One of the things that I’ve heard is once you start doing Bonsai, you should not wire for at least 1 to 2 years into your journey. Ect…
Personally I have combined reading, seeking wisdom from those with more experience as well as hands-on. I have definitely done work on a tree that I thought was a risk, but I did it in the spirit of learning and was very hopeful for the success of the tree. My thought is obviously with practice you’re going to have some loss and failures. Of course we all set out to be successful and preserve tree life but in evolving and growing, sometimes we push boundaries and “rules” that are upsetting to some. I have found that some think strictly black-and-white, where others lean on the side of creative and experimenting. And also some combine the two thought processes for doing bonsai. I have found people who do more traditional Bonsai and those who are more creative clashing on how they approach those of us just learning.
Just curious on your perspectives on how one proceeds to learn as we sort through the different practices and not offend those with different approaches?
Absolutely yes, but I didn't feel like writing the paragraphs I planned to knowing no beginner is going to sit through reading 5 pages of chlorine argument to get to my lowly response. So I guess I am the problem here.