"Don Staples" wrote in message
news:cPKdnd54hYixoIfVnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@telecomsuppl yinc...
Get back on your medication, dead wood.

Please define "dead wood".


--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that
will give them understanding.

"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"Don Staples" wrote in message
news:cPKdnd54hYixoIfVnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@telecomsuppl yinc...
Get back on your medication, dead wood.

Please define "dead wood".

symplastless

"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"D. Staples" wrote in message
news:hqmdnU3hWMJxqYTVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@telecomsuppl yinc...

You did not come off short, you came off an assault by the plant spammer,
dead wood.

Ok, then Don the word game professional. Define "Dead Wood". Please.

symplastless

"D. Staples" wrote in message
news:btKdnS6f7aU6-ofVnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@telecomsupplyinc...

"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"D. Staples" wrote in message
news:hqmdnU3hWMJxqYTVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@telecomsuppl yinc...

You did not come off short, you came off an assault by the plant
spammer, dead wood.

Ok, then Don the word game professional. Define "Dead Wood". Please.

symplastless

Don
Thank you for taking the time to define your terms.
See that's the problem (not the fact that you defined your terms - that's
great). People speak of material or a mass of material such as a piece of
wood and its contents as being dead, non-ecologically functioning, waste, no
value, etc. When in reality it is symplastless and house a great deal of
living organisms and organs such as mycorrhizae. I understand that a plane
is dead yet often there are many people inside the plane. To call a plane
flying over above as dead is at least a half truth. Same as referring to a
chunk of wood in a forest as dead. A symplastless piece of wood often
specifically recognized as "dead wood" can be made up of at least 35% fungi
cells alone. You stated that when you say dead wood you mean symplastless.
That's fine, at least I know now what you mean. However too often the term
dead wood is used and misunderstood. I do respect the fact that you defined
your terms. Please understand when I say symplastless wood I do not mean
dead wood, non-ecologically functioning, waste, no value, etc.

In contrast, a symplastless tree or log includes a considerable number of
living cells, as much 35% of the biomass may be live fungal cells (Franklin,
Shugart and Harmon, 1987, pg 551).

We document that a large symplastless tree is not a wasted resource; indeed,
it continues to function as an important part of a terrestrial or water
system, either while remaining on the site at which it once grew, or by
becoming a structural part of an aquatic or marine habitat. We aim to help
anyone interested in perpetual forest productivity to understand the
importance of large, symplastless woody debris. The book develops certain
principles and ideas in sequence from the forest to the sea (Maser, Tarrant,
Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg 1par5).

John

"D. Staples" wrote in message
news:qaOdncckLaTs-ofVnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@telecomsupplyinc...

"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"Don Staples" wrote in message
news:cPKdnd54hYixoIfVnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@telecomsuppl yinc...
Get back on your medication, dead wood.

Please define "dead wood".

symplastless

Don
Thank you for taking the time to define your terms.
See that's the problem (not the fact that you defined your terms - that's
great). People speak of material or a mass of material such as a piece of
wood and its contents as being dead, non-ecologically functioning, waste, no
value, etc. When in reality it is symplastless and house a great deal of
living organisms and organs such as mycorrhizae. I understand that a plane
is dead yet often there are many people inside the plane. To call a plane
flying over above as dead is at least a half truth. Same as referring to a
chunk of wood in a forest as dead. A symplastless piece of wood often
specifically recognized as "dead wood" can be made up of at least 35% fungi
cells alone. You stated that when you say dead wood you mean symplastless.
That's fine, at least I know now what you mean. However too often the term
dead wood is used and misunderstood. I do respect the fact that you defined
your terms. Please understand when I say symplastless wood I do not mean
dead wood, non-ecologically functioning, waste, no value, etc.

In contrast, a symplastless tree or log includes a considerable number of
living cells, as much 35% of the biomass may be live fungal cells (Franklin,
Shugart and Harmon, 1987, pg 551).

We document that a large symplastless tree is not a wasted resource; indeed,
it continues to function as an important part of a terrestrial or water
system, either while remaining on the site at which it once grew, or by
becoming a structural part of an aquatic or marine habitat. We aim to help
anyone interested in perpetual forest productivity to understand the
importance of large, symplastless woody debris. The book develops certain
principles and ideas in sequence from the forest to the sea (Maser, Tarrant,
Trappe and Franklin, 1988, pg 1par5).

John

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:34:12 -0400, "symplastless"
wrote:


You never sent me a picture of one dissection you did. People that do not
dissect trees should not be permitted to talk about trees.

Huh? You asked for donuts on tree cuts outside the branch collar, not
dissections. OOp, I'm talking about trees and I never dissected one.
Conversation over.

I will explain again. First you are right. That was a huge wound and by
all means if you hit the target you should get great credit. Due to my
ignorance I was not sure that was really the way it was, thus I asked if it
was possible to get a dissection. Instead of arguing I went and did a
dissection on my pruning jobs. To really understand you must dissect trees.
I did it he
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...ach/index.html

Come on, give me something to work with. Just remember the target of a
dissection in a longitudinal plane is to try to get the pith. By all means
it is dangerous work. If you cannot do it fine. Send me a sample and I
will dissect it.
Will you never forgive for my ignorance?

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding us
that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books that
will give them understanding.

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:34:12 -0400, "symplastless"
wrote:


You never sent me a picture of one dissection you did. People that do not
dissect trees should not be permitted to talk about trees.

Huh? You asked for donuts on tree cuts outside the branch collar, not
dissections. OOp, I'm talking about trees and I never dissected one.
Conversation over.

Didn't anyone tell you not to mess with a tar baby? The more you mess
with it, the worse it gets.
--

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

"symplastless" wrote in
:


"D. Staples" wrote in message
news:btKdnS6f7aU6-ofVnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@telecomsupplyinc...

"symplastless" wrote in message
. ..

"D. Staples" wrote in message
news:hqmdnU3hWMJxqYTVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@telecomsuppl yinc...

You did not come off short, you came off an assault by
the plant spammer, dead wood.

Ok, then Don the word game professional. Define "Dead
Wood". Please.

symplastless

Thank you for taking the time to define your terms.
See that's the problem (not the fact that you defined your
terms - that's great). People speak of material or a mass
of material such as a piece of wood and its contents as
being dead, non-ecologically functioning, waste, no value,
etc.

really? i have never heard anyone speak of wood that way.
you , however, are a one trick pony & unfortunately it's a
very dull trick. no one cares what you say because you say the
same thing, no matter what the question and no matter if the
"explaination" applies or not.
you are *not* an authority on trees or tree health. you have
no *practical* advice to impart.
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.

"symplastless" wrote in message
...

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:34:12 -0400, "symplastless"
wrote:


You never sent me a picture of one dissection you did. People that do
not
dissect trees should not be permitted to talk about trees.

Huh? You asked for donuts on tree cuts outside the branch collar, not
dissections. OOp, I'm talking about trees and I never dissected one.
Conversation over.

I will explain again. First you are right. That was a huge wound and by
all means if you hit the target you should get great credit. Due to my
ignorance I was not sure that was really the way it was, thus I asked if
it was possible to get a dissection. Instead of arguing I went and did a
dissection on my pruning jobs. To really understand you must dissect
trees.
I did it he
http://www.treedictionary.com/DICT20...ach/index.html

Come on, give me something to work with. Just remember the target of a
dissection in a longitudinal plane is to try to get the pith. By all
means it is dangerous work. If you cannot do it fine. Send me a sample
and I will dissect it.
Will you never forgive for my ignorance?

--
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Consulting Tree Biologist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep reminding
us that we are not the boss.
Some people will buy products they do not understand and not buy books
that will give them understanding.



Ignorance can be correct, stupidity cannot, in that you are a lost cause.