In article
,
gardengal wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:38*pm, Billy wrote:

So what your saying is, if I had only listened to you, I'd know you were
right? Hmmmm.

Noooooo. What I said that if you had studied the matter yourself -
like took a couple of courses or spent time in the field doing
research - rather than just regurgitating what you have found in
books, you might broaden your perspective.
So, as a teacher, you're telling me that unless I take a class, my
studies don't count. Doesn't say much for self-actuated learning does it?
And my time observing in the garden is just wasted time? Huh? Who would
have thought. Interesting pedagogical approach you have there. You must
be one of those "No Kid's Behind Left" types.
btw, if you look hard
enough, you can find something published that will support pretty much
any wild claim.
I've noticed that from reading your posts.
It's more a matter of considering the source and
evaluating whether that source has any credence.
Which is why I wanted to know your bonifides.
And if the
regurgitated information is even presented in context or applicable to
the discussion at hand.
Or a teacher who answers the question that they want to answer, rather
than the one that was ask.

Seems you didn't do all the original research on your information either.
So why you giving me a hard time for doing the same thing?
Or is it I represent a threat, because I can read, same as you, and
since I've read others, I might know something you don't, thereby
diminishing your "glory"? Hmmm.

So far your arguments - if one can call them that - seem to be focused
more on personal attacks rather than providing any credence to your
statements. That says volumes. Go ahead and play your childish little
games and feel as superior and self-righteous as you like.
Say, you're pretty handy with ad hominems and invectives yourself.
I'm pretty
secure in my position and with myeducation and experience and
certainly don't need your validation.
Pu-leez, don't let me disturb your reality.

You gat serious issues girl.

And you don't??

Speakin' of serious, I gat to find my bottle opener. I ain't worth
s__t, till I have breakfast.

And that explains a lot.
What, that you can't even win an argument with a dissipated drunk?

It's been a lot of fun but let's get back to the question about whether
plants can change soil pH, shall we? After all, that's why we are here.
Now are we talking bare, scraped land or a constituent area of the
biosphere?

You seem amenable (correct me if I'm wrong) to imperceptible changes to
the exposed underlying geological strata, let's call it acute vegetation
(all of a sudden a lot of plants). How about changes based on chronic
vegetation (plants growing in a spot for a long time)? Would you grant
me that there are changes that would take place immediately around the
plant and it's roots? Would not there be some change due to the
mycorrhiza (acidic) or the bacterial exudate (basic) due to their
abilities to dissolve different minerals from the geological substrate?
If yes, how far would this change occur? How long before it would become
significant?

You must be aware of continental drift. Let's say that as the plates
drifted apart that one part becomes, oh let's say South Carolina and the
other part becomes, say, Senegal, are you going to have the same type of
geologically determined plants growing in both places?

I await your professional response.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html