In article ,
"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:

I want to improve my garden. I need to protect it from the brutal winds we
have here sometimes, and I would like to shade a portion of it. I am going
to build a framework similar to those at plant nurseries. I would also like
to make raised beds to make it easier to access everything.

I was wondering about the water system. I would like to have some sprayers
from the ceiling, as I see this reduces temperatures, and soaks everything
as from a natural rain. Is this a good idea? Should I have the water
coming in from the top, plus some coming in pipes in the ground? My garden
is getting irrigated spotty right now because the pipes flow into trenches,
and then gravity takes it to the plants. The plants at the top of the ditch
get more water, and if something interrupts the flow, the plants at the end
don't get hardly any water. I want to make an even distribution system so
that they all get a proper amount of water. I would like it all to come
down from above so that when the water is shut off, it drains out, making it
less likely to freeze come cold weather.

Ideas and experiences appreciated.

Steve

No matter where you live.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&pwst=1&sa=X&o
i=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=microclimates&sp ell=1

Think how the heck did the Hopi grow corn in a such a place ? As my
faulty memory recalls. They hilled small hills of corn on one side to
provide a wind break. This also enabled dew to collect and nurture.

http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln29/soleri.html

"Book of the Hopi" a great read some time.

Not a simple idea but a challenging one.

Have Fun!

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_107741.html

I want to improve my garden. I need to protect it from the brutal winds we
have here sometimes, and I would like to shade a portion of it. I am going
to build a framework similar to those at plant nurseries. I would also like
to make raised beds to make it easier to access everything.

I was wondering about the water system. I would like to have some sprayers
from the ceiling, as I see this reduces temperatures, and soaks everything
as from a natural rain. Is this a good idea? Should I have the water
coming in from the top, plus some coming in pipes in the ground? My garden
is getting irrigated spotty right now because the pipes flow into trenches,
and then gravity takes it to the plants. The plants at the top of the ditch
get more water, and if something interrupts the flow, the plants at the end
don't get hardly any water. I want to make an even distribution system so
that they all get a proper amount of water. I would like it all to come
down from above so that when the water is shut off, it drains out, making it
less likely to freeze come cold weather.

Ideas and experiences appreciated.

Steve

--
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere
critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly,
not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."
Theodore Roosevelt 1891

Persephone wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:20:27 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


[...]
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere
critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and
imperfectly,
not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."
Theodore Roosevelt 1891

Like many .sigs, this may SOUND good, but is actually simplistic.

Where did TR think that "man who actually does the work" got his
ideas? In most cases, from the "man who [only] talks or writes about
how it ought to be done.

Not to denigrate the classic innovative "Yankee" tinkerer; the man
on the job has often found the jig, or fix to make it work, where
management was too far removed from the project.

But TR's blustering statement throws out in one fell swoop the
whole of theory.

The theorist who appears to be staring out the window for hours
or days on end is the one who was thinking out of the box -- the one
who changed history.

I suspect TR may have been talking about an idle or unproductive
critic, but his statement was poorly worded in that it appeared to
indict the "revolutionary" theorist. Did TR ever think about how the
theory of the speed of light, e.g. came to Einstein -- as a "thought
experiment". Volumes of other examples exist.

A little humility, please, TR!

Persephone

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, do you actually have ANYTHING to say about the question?

Steve

In article ,
"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:

Persephone wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:20:27 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


[...]
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere
critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and
imperfectly,
not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."
Theodore Roosevelt 1891

Like many .sigs, this may SOUND good, but is actually simplistic.

Where did TR think that "man who actually does the work" got his
ideas? In most cases, from the "man who [only] talks or writes about
how it ought to be done.

Not to denigrate the classic innovative "Yankee" tinkerer; the man
on the job has often found the jig, or fix to make it work, where
management was too far removed from the project.

But TR's blustering statement throws out in one fell swoop the
whole of theory.

The theorist who appears to be staring out the window for hours
or days on end is the one who was thinking out of the box -- the one
who changed history.

I suspect TR may have been talking about an idle or unproductive
critic, but his statement was poorly worded in that it appeared to
indict the "revolutionary" theorist. Did TR ever think about how the
theory of the speed of light, e.g. came to Einstein -- as a "thought
experiment". Volumes of other examples exist.

A little humility, please, TR!

Persephone

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, do you actually have ANYTHING to say about the question?

Steve

Wot question? Should you listen to a back seat driver?
Only if you want to stay alive, would be my take.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

On Jun 19, 5:26*pm, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:
Persephone wrote in message

...





On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:02:27 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:

Persephone wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:20:27 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:

[...]
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere
critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and
imperfectly,
not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."
Theodore Roosevelt 1891

Like many .sigs, this may SOUND good, but is actually simplistic.

Where did TR think that "man who actually does the work" got his
ideas? *In most cases, from the "man who [only] talks or writes about
how it ought to be done.

Not to denigrate the classic innovative "Yankee" tinkerer; the man
on the job has *often found the jig, or fix to make it work, where
management was too far removed from the project.

But TR's blustering statement throws out in one fell swoop the
whole of theory.

The theorist who appears to be staring out the window for hours
or days on end is *the one who was thinking out of the box -- the one
who changed history.

I suspect TR may have been talking about an idle or unproductive
critic, but his statement was poorly worded in that it appeared to
indict the "revolutionary" *theorist. *Did TR ever think about how the
theory of the speed of light, e.g. came to Einstein -- as a "thought
experiment". *Volumes of other examples exist.

A little humility, please, TR!

Persephone

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, do you actually have ANYTHING to say about the question?

Steve

Now, did you actually understand ANYTHING about the role of theorists
in advancing the human condition?

This is not a poster worth debating.

Persephone

I'm sorry you failed to notice this is a newsgroup about gardens rather than
"the role of theorists in advancing the human condition." *No, I have no
desire to participate in mental masturbation with someone who assigns
themself the name of a dead god.

I'd just like some information regarding gardening. *Since you are incapable
of doing that because of being so seriously educated beyond your capacity, I
choose not to debate with you.

Now, if other posters, who are entitled to speak for themselves would like,
I will debate all day about whether to use round or oblong horse turds for
fertilizer, whether to furrow north-south vs. east-west, and whether ionized
water is better for rutabagas than softened water. *However, I do not care
to participate in the nitpicking hair splitting debate you seem so fond of
pursuing themes and topics you yourself cannot set parameters on.

Now be gone, child. *You bore me.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You Go Steve! Right on! I was wondering the same thing. I'm sure
there's a phylosiphy (can't even spell it!) and theory board where the
human condition can be discussed all night, this isn't it. I
apologize Steve, I just had to say something. But I am very
interested in hearing the answer to your question because I'm
interested in doing something similar myself and would like to know
what others have done.

Persephone wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:02:27 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


Persephone wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:20:27 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


[...]
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere
critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and
imperfectly,
not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."
Theodore Roosevelt 1891

Like many .sigs, this may SOUND good, but is actually simplistic.

Where did TR think that "man who actually does the work" got his
ideas? In most cases, from the "man who [only] talks or writes about
how it ought to be done.

Not to denigrate the classic innovative "Yankee" tinkerer; the man
on the job has often found the jig, or fix to make it work, where
management was too far removed from the project.

But TR's blustering statement throws out in one fell swoop the
whole of theory.

The theorist who appears to be staring out the window for hours
or days on end is the one who was thinking out of the box -- the one
who changed history.

I suspect TR may have been talking about an idle or unproductive
critic, but his statement was poorly worded in that it appeared to
indict the "revolutionary" theorist. Did TR ever think about how the
theory of the speed of light, e.g. came to Einstein -- as a "thought
experiment". Volumes of other examples exist.

A little humility, please, TR!

Persephone

Thank you for proving my point.

Now, do you actually have ANYTHING to say about the question?

Steve

Now, did you actually understand ANYTHING about the role of theorists
in advancing the human condition?

This is not a poster worth debating.

Persephone

I'm sorry you failed to notice this is a newsgroup about gardens rather than
"the role of theorists in advancing the human condition." No, I have no
desire to participate in mental masturbation with someone who assigns
themself the name of a dead god.

I'd just like some information regarding gardening. Since you are incapable
of doing that because of being so seriously educated beyond your capacity, I
choose not to debate with you.

Now, if other posters, who are entitled to speak for themselves would like,
I will debate all day about whether to use round or oblong horse turds for
fertilizer, whether to furrow north-south vs. east-west, and whether ionized
water is better for rutabagas than softened water. However, I do not care
to participate in the nitpicking hair splitting debate you seem so fond of
pursuing themes and topics you yourself cannot set parameters on.

Now be gone, child. You bore me.

Steve

In article ,
"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:

Charlie wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:26:05 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


I'm sorry you failed to notice this is a newsgroup about gardens rather
than
"the role of theorists in advancing the human condition." No, I have no
desire to participate in mental masturbation with someone who assigns
themself the name of a dead god.

This person posts under other names also. Same tone.

I'd just like some information regarding gardening. Since you are
incapable
of doing that because of being so seriously educated beyond your capacity,
I
choose not to debate with you.

Now, if other posters, who are entitled to speak for themselves would
like,
I will debate all day about whether to use round or oblong horse turds for
fertilizer, whether to furrow north-south vs. east-west, and whether
ionized
water is better for rutabagas than softened water. However, I do not care
to participate in the nitpicking hair splitting debate you seem so fond of
pursuing themes and topics you yourself cannot set parameters on.

You silly boy.......everyone knows that round horse turds are used on
crops such as tomatoes (except romas and other elongated varieties)
beets, turnips, etc. Oblong turds are used for carrots, cylindra
beets, french breakfast radishes, roma tomatoes, etc. Get the picture?
Ya' gots to match the turd shape to the general shape of the crop you
wish to shit upon. No debate necessary. It's a fact.

Now be gone, child. You bore me.

Steve


Charlie

Well, at least you want to discuss gardening, and not subjects so ethereal
they can't be defined except in the mind of the one starting the discussion.

Which turd would one use for squash? Particularly the gourd shaped variety?

Steve

It seems that the subject of conversation is the signature that you
introduced into the gardening newsgroups. I can certainly understand yo
not wanting to defend it but fair is fair, you introduced it and now it
is open for comment, at least in my modest opinion. Ad hominems and
invectives really aren't the substance for a exhibition of belief, but
rather a ploy to be used in an untenable position by those lacking
character and integrity. Hopefully, you can do better.

The dead goddess and I rarely agree but this does seem to be one of
those occasions. Don't be timid.

As to your question (this is really embarrassing since squash don't have
a defined shape), what shape are you?
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

Charlie wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:26:05 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


I'm sorry you failed to notice this is a newsgroup about gardens rather
than
"the role of theorists in advancing the human condition." No, I have no
desire to participate in mental masturbation with someone who assigns
themself the name of a dead god.

This person posts under other names also. Same tone.

I'd just like some information regarding gardening. Since you are
incapable
of doing that because of being so seriously educated beyond your capacity,
I
choose not to debate with you.

Now, if other posters, who are entitled to speak for themselves would
like,
I will debate all day about whether to use round or oblong horse turds for
fertilizer, whether to furrow north-south vs. east-west, and whether
ionized
water is better for rutabagas than softened water. However, I do not care
to participate in the nitpicking hair splitting debate you seem so fond of
pursuing themes and topics you yourself cannot set parameters on.

You silly boy.......everyone knows that round horse turds are used on
crops such as tomatoes (except romas and other elongated varieties)
beets, turnips, etc. Oblong turds are used for carrots, cylindra
beets, french breakfast radishes, roma tomatoes, etc. Get the picture?
Ya' gots to match the turd shape to the general shape of the crop you
wish to shit upon. No debate necessary. It's a fact.

Now be gone, child. You bore me.

Steve


Charlie

Well, at least you want to discuss gardening, and not subjects so ethereal
they can't be defined except in the mind of the one starting the discussion.

Which turd would one use for squash? Particularly the gourd shaped variety?

Steve

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
I want to improve my garden. I need to protect it from the brutal winds we
have here sometimes, and I would like to shade a portion of it. I am going
to build a framework similar to those at plant nurseries. I would also like
to make raised beds to make it easier to access everything.


Sounds good

I was wondering about the water system. I would like to have some sprayers
from the ceiling, as I see this reduces temperatures, and soaks everything
as from a natural rain. Is this a good idea?

Overhead spraying uses up more water than ground level watering due to
evaporative loss. With frequent use it can also encourage fungi by leaving
the leaves wet, raising humidity and bringing up spores from the ground if it
squirts that far.

However some types of plants will do much better with raised humidity and the
coolness produced by the evaporative loss - provided you can afford the water
and other possible consequences.

I know of a rainforest maintained in a gully by spraying at intervals round
the clock in a climate that gets about 25 in per year of rain and would never
support such a thing naturally.

You have to decide on how much you want to grow according to your climate and
how much you want to create a microclimate.

Should I have the water
coming in from the top, plus some coming in pipes in the ground? My garden
is getting irrigated spotty right now because the pipes flow into trenches,
and then gravity takes it to the plants. The plants at the top of the ditch
get more water, and if something interrupts the flow, the plants at the end
don't get hardly any water. I want to make an even distribution system so
that they all get a proper amount of water.

Drippers or "leaky" hoses will do this and conserve water too.

I would like it all to come
down from above so that when the water is shut off, it drains out, making it
less likely to freeze come cold weather.


Cannot comment due to lack of experience with gardens freezing.

Ideas and experiences appreciated.

Steve


David

In article , Charlie says...
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:26:05 -0800, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas
wrote:


I'm sorry you failed to notice this is a newsgroup about gardens rather than
"the role of theorists in advancing the human condition." No, I have no
desire to participate in mental masturbation with someone who assigns
themself the name of a dead god.

This person posts under other names also. Same tone.

but...

If you ignore the bait, you don't get baited.

Charlie wrote in
news
Ya' gots to
match the turd shape to the general shape of the crop you
wish to shit upon. No debate necessary. It's a fact.

oh! so that's why the llama beans work so well on the peas...
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...
I want to improve my garden. I need to protect it from the brutal winds
we
have here sometimes, and I would like to shade a portion of it. I am
going
to build a framework similar to those at plant nurseries. I would also
like
to make raised beds to make it easier to access everything.


Sounds good

I was wondering about the water system. I would like to have some
sprayers
from the ceiling, as I see this reduces temperatures, and soaks
everything
as from a natural rain. Is this a good idea?

Overhead spraying uses up more water than ground level watering due to
evaporative loss. With frequent use it can also encourage fungi by
leaving
the leaves wet, raising humidity and bringing up spores from the ground if
it
squirts that far.

However some types of plants will do much better with raised humidity and
the
coolness produced by the evaporative loss - provided you can afford the
water
and other possible consequences.

I know of a rainforest maintained in a gully by spraying at intervals
round
the clock in a climate that gets about 25 in per year of rain and would
never
support such a thing naturally.

You have to decide on how much you want to grow according to your climate
and
how much you want to create a microclimate.

Should I have the water
coming in from the top, plus some coming in pipes in the ground? My
garden
is getting irrigated spotty right now because the pipes flow into
trenches,
and then gravity takes it to the plants. The plants at the top of the
ditch
get more water, and if something interrupts the flow, the plants at the
end
don't get hardly any water. I want to make an even distribution system
so
that they all get a proper amount of water.

Drippers or "leaky" hoses will do this and conserve water too.

I would like it all to come
down from above so that when the water is shut off, it drains out, making
it
less likely to freeze come cold weather.


Cannot comment due to lack of experience with gardens freezing.

Ideas and experiences appreciated.

Steve


David

Sorry, I should have added that water is terribly expensive here. We are AG
1 zoning, and the water bill is a flat $100 a year with no meter for a 1
1/4" line.

Steve ;-)

"phorbin" wrote

If you ignore the bait, you don't get baited.

Noted, and Mr./Ms./Mrs. Pheremone is now in the round file.

Steve

In article ,
"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote:

"phorbin" wrote

If you ignore the bait, you don't get baited.

Noted, and Mr./Ms./Mrs. Pheremone is now in the round file.

Steve

A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything
real on real issues.
Theodore Roosevelt

--
Bush Behind Bars

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBB0s...eature=related

In article , Persephone wrote:

snip...

It is not OK to attack people personally, but it is very much OK to
attack IDEAS! Of course if it's done thoughtfully, that helps.
But going back over the history of humankind, especially the
last few thousand years, it is ridiculously easy to make a list of
ideas which were once accepted, but now have been shown to be flawed.

Today's assignment:

I feel that statement "It is not OK to attack people personally"
is wrong!!!!! To restrict ones' speech in any way is bad. One should
have the right to call another: stupid, idiot, fat, ugly or any other
derogative or negative term. Most insulting words are defined by the
person stating it. Restricting free speech in my book - will do more
harm in any society than good. Teachers should have right to say, "You
stupid idiot - go back and do it right!" I believe insults help build
mental calluses for a stronger mind. People who are offended by
statements are just simply weak minded. Free speech should include
cussing in public as well.

In my book, people do not have the right to state lies about a person or
in which people are directly physically harmed by speech (Like FIRE when
there is no fire).

If one does run into a week minded person, one should learn to "duck" or
"run like a rabbit" when insulting them. If it is being suggested that
"It is not OK to attack people personally" in physical way ... I agree

Just for the record, I am attacking the stupid chick's IDEA about free
speech, not the stupid chick herself

Enjoy Life ... Dan

--
Email "dan lehr at comcast dot net". Text only or goes to trash automatically.