On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:55:32 -0400 (EDT), "Shiva"
wrote:

torgo wrote:

Yo - getting a little harsh there, weren't you, Shiva?

I might be, or you might be getting a little thin-skinned, eh Torgo?

Perhaps - but Cass suggested rain damage, and you said nothing.
Radika also said she thinks it's probably rain damage, and again you
say nothing. Then I say I agree, I think it's probably rain damage
too, and you open fire at me with both barrels and with quite
offensive tones.

Now another poster pipes in that it could easily be rain damage, and
you still choose to come at me with heavy doses of condescension.

So regardless of how thick my skin is, how my day has gone, how much
lithium I have in my blood stream, and how many countless times my
parole officer has told me to turn the other cheek, you're still
bending over backwards to stroke my fur the wrong way.


Yes. Shall I take this as a "yes, I have seen botrytis, Shiva?"

Take it as a "yes, I have seen botrytis and its effects on dozens of
different plants from artichokes to zucchini".

You could easily throw in "Yes, I've battled it before - been there,
done that", and perhaps even "Take a hint - I'm more experienced with
it than you're giving me credit for here, and considering you didn't
even realize it was a fungus, I probably know more about it than you
do yourself, so knock off the patronizing attitude."


I call it nonsense for someone who has obviously not ever observed a
regular, effective fungicide program to suggest it may harm beautiful
foliage, or make it unsightly. And, well, it is nonsense.

I have indeed observed such a program. I use fungicides myself for
most of my established roses. And thanks again for the continued use
of such condescending responses.

If those were my roses, I wouldn't alter the treatment program until
I knew exactly what I was fighting. His foliage is incredible as is,
so the upside of any different course of action would be minimal.
There's simply no reason to change a single thing without knowing
exactly what or why.

I did not mention Orthenex by name, nor did I say that those ill
effects would specifically make the rose foliage unsightly. Try not
to think in such narrow, rose-only terms. All I said was that the
bad effects of strong chemicals could outweigh the good. And that's
quite true, even if the statement doesn't get the Shiva Seal Of
Approval.


Orthenex is a combination fungicide and insecticide. It is all I use to
protect my roses from fungus. I have used it every ten days since late
March, and do not have a spot of any kind of disease on my roses, or
spider mites, or other insect pests.

Hey, that's great. Congratulations on your healthy foliage. It's a
great systemic insecticide, and a good fungicide for preventing black
spot, rust, and other mild fungi. But neither version (the aerosol
and concentrate have differing formulas) is indicated for Botrytis
cinerea (but you knew that already, having read the label, right?) and
neither is sufficient for a real botrytis outbreak.

A small presence of spores in relaltively warm, dry weather would
succumb to Orthonex, but you'd get similar results under such
conditions from a control group sprayed with a non water based
placebo, or for that matter not treated at all. Even the manufacturer
doesn't recommend it for use against stronger fungi like Botrytis
cinerea. (Ortho's own advice = Go directly to Daconil. Do not pass
Go, do not collect $200.)

So I still question your prescription of Orthonex as the cure for your
diagnosis of botrytis. It is an illogical combination.


Try to remember that it is just a debate. I have no emotional or personal

No, it isn't a debate. The poster presented a problem. Several of us
responded with our suggestions of possible causes.

For whatever reason, you then chose to flame my response - and only
mine, despite the fact that several others had already stated the same
opinion - hammering it from top to bottom in offensive fashion. I
didn't think such behavior existed here, and I certainly wouldn't have
expected it from you.