On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:33:13 +0000 (UTC), "Martin"
wrote:

I did reply to the person concerned giving the source of the article but he
either missed my reply or ignored it.

No, there's a third choice - *you* missed the reply.

That thread actually got a bit out or control and off topic

Well, a lot of that had to do with you and your sockpuppet, Franz.

so I posted the reply you see which contains the whole
report rather that just a reference.

Your original reply to my query was just a link to the pruning article
on the site that many of us will be ignoring in the future. It wasn't
a link to that "report". The "second time", as you put it, was
actually the first time you posted anything other than a vague biased
comment on the method.

BTW, who cares if you endorse it or not? Why are you the Rose Nazi
about this? Do you have proof that it causes the problems that you
claim? One would think that if it *was* such a bad technique, we could
have heard some rebuttal to the decade-old tests? Apparently, from
what I understand, they're still using this method. In fact, one of
our most successful rose gardeners (who takes care of about 70 gardens
for the time-pressed denizens of Nashville), uses a variation of this
because he uses a chainsaw to do most of his pruning in the winter and
then goes back in the spring to clean things up. Apparently it works
for he and his clients shrug.

Do you even *grow* roses or are you a hired gun for the website?