In article ,
Geoff-consulting forester in the US wrote:

Treelady, et, Al.

The only reason you find "Symplastless" to have a good understanding of
trees is that you are ignorant.

Note that I stated "ignorant" and not stupid. My statement is not an
insult, but rather a logical reply based on your input.

It is obvious that none of the rest of you have enough experience with
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) to offer advice or experience with the critter.

So, instead this thread becomes a fury of insults. How ridiculously
selfish.

I am the only one who has offered any positive information about this
topic, with the exception of the person who started this thread - and
that person was *NOT* "Symplastless".

Just because "Symplastless" has a "good understanding of trees" (a
statement coming from someone ("Treelady") who may or may not have
credentials), doesn't mean he knows anything about EAB.

His offer that healthy trees respond more vigorously to fend off disease
and pathogens as a response to an EAB infection speaks volumes to his
ignorance of the matter.

"D. Staples", a forester in the SE *IS* educated, as is "Joe" (a
forester in the NE.)
Massachusetts isn't it? I wonder how Jim DiMaio would appreciate this
kind of public relations?
There are other professional people who serve the
posters on this newsgroup as well. We all have paid our dues serving
the public, serving private and group land ownerships and acquiring a
degree from different universities.

This is something that Keslick ("Symplastless") has *NOT* done.

...and his lack of knowledge on the subject matter, along with his
self-marketing is a typical combination of a scam artist.

THIS is why I suggested to the original poster to simply ignore him.

I'd recommend that advice to my colleague D. Staples once again too.

(Note to Don, cheap entertainment yes - but there are bigger bangs for
the buck so to speak).

As to you other faux geniuses out there, (e.g. "Billy Rose"), please
take the mensa test and see how you score. I suspect that you will not
fare as well as you think.

Regards,
Geoff

Just when I thought you were modeling behavior. Why can't your buddies
answer a simple question without going all attitudinal? Don brought into
question John's qualifications which are very clearly posted. I make no
special claims for myself but I posted mine so that Don might figure out
how it was done. (But if you feel so insecure that you need someone
else, MENSA, to validate you for money, go for it.) Don was maligning
John's work and gave no basis for it. Even as good as your post is, you
still condescend without addressing the issue. It seems that if you work
for the government for a few years, you're no good in the private sector
anymore. Shouldn't you be out picking up trash or something?
--
FB - FFF

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/