"Andy Rutledge" wrote in message
news:001001c35ab8$b6dd13d0$0a0110ac@andy...

I wished for private responses. You replied on Usenet and so will I.

You have quite effectively distorted Reiner's words to the extent that
your
arguments in response are irrelevant (and mostly erroneous). For
instance,
you make the following observation/question:

"So age only matters when something "good"comes with it?!?"

In the context of bonsai, of course.

Note that I put good in quotes. Meaning: Reiner's definition of good.
And, as I can guess from your response, your definition, too.

That you don't understand that is
regrettable. Bonsai is an aesthetic endeavor, so when judging and
quantifying the physical/aesthetic elements of a bonsai, age is
irrelevant

Age is irrelevant? Well, E X A C T L Y!!!

except to the extent

....that old farts can't cope with their age anymore? And declare
everything they don't like as contemporary crap? Well, be my guest(s)
but don't expect me to swalow it willingly.

that the age impacts the appearance

You do have some grip on it after all: it's about _appearance_of_age_.
Which doesn't necessarily demand real age.

and is referenced
in the context of the design. This is probably something with which
you
should come to grips in the course of your bonsai study.

You also observe:

"And, BTW Reiner, if you think Kimura is classical then you'd better
recheck
your grip on reality."

And I think that you'd better expand your clearly limited acquaintance
with
Mr. Kimura's work. Mr. Kimura is a classicist in a documented
tradition of
classicists, but with talents that allow him to have thrust innovation

Classicism and and inovation don't mix, Andy. Except in your dictionary
maybe. Which, if that's the case, is more than ready to be revised.

into
his work as well. Spend some time getting to know Mr. Kimura's body
of work
and you will begin to appreciate how ridiculous was your admonishment
to
Reiner.

Ridiculous or not, let's wait for Reiner's respose to the Kimura
question, shall we.

These and other naive and inaccurate (and petty)

Petty. But of course. Standing up to an old geezer (possibly sliding
into dementia) is always characterized as petty. But like Reiner said:
"The age of the atrocity has absolutely no bearing on its merit [...].
It needs to come off." Maybe it's Reiner's time to "come off" ridiculing
other people's work.

observations in your post
beg response and illustrate clearly how "a little information is a
dangerous
thing." You should learn to appreciate how honest and contextually
accurate
(even opinionated) observations differ from petty, unfounded
criticism.

Talk about petty. You do know what a Nachtgeschirr is, Andy? Suggesting
that Walter's trees should be planted in such things is beyond petty.
It's insulting and mad.

Reiner's observations (in the gallery thread) were constructive

Constructive? Nachtgeschirr? Indeed!

and
accurate, though certainly tempered by opinion. Yours are merely
petty

Petty. Check.

(in
addition to being largely impertinent).

Your on-list tirade unnecessarily invites an on-list response - you
should
probably have expressed your ill-conceived and misguided ire in the
context
of the discussion you reference (if at all) and directed toward Reiner
rather than as an "expose'" of perceived poor behavior.

Poor behaviour. Check. Make sure you behave properly and put your
Nachtgeschirr under your bed tonight, Andy. And when you look into it in
the morning, know that Walter's tree has been identified with it's
contents by one Reiner G. on his best behaviour.

Also, it helps to
be accurate in your characterization and your rebuttals.

It does, doesn't it?