On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:50:31 -0400, Henry
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:26:13 -0400, Boron Elgar
wrote:

Some threads need more nurturing
than others to blossom nicely...they are similar to roses in that
respect.


Well yes - they don't need to be buried behind billboards. Or craven
posts either.

I have to agree with Dave on this one. Posts by Martin are all very
similar - a paragraph generally on-topic but very short of specifics and
then a link to his web site. Now, I should say that I don't mind an
occasional link to web sites, even people's own site - I've done it
myself when I had a good picture to share. But linking to his site
seems to be all Mr. Double is here for.

Also, if his site had a lot of really good information or well written
articles by rose experts, then I'd mind less. I've looked over the
bexrose site and it isn't exactly encyclopedic. So, a link once in a
while to such a site would be (way) more than enough. Or a link to a
particular article related to a question. For instance, if Paul Barden
posted a link to his site, referencing a relevant article by himself or
one of his contributors, I'd have no problem with that. But Martin
Double is no Paul Barden. Note: I have no connection with Paul other
than to have learned from many of his fine articles (and once by direct
email).

You summed things up for me nicely.

And let me say this - I have absolutely NO problem with "commercial
links" in signatures, and would have no problem with Martin promoting
his site in the same way. I could just do without the unsupported
hyperbole and the posts whose sole purpose seems to be to get the link
posted, especially when they don't add anything substantial to what's
already been posted.

So, I guess I've said my piece and will probably lay off Mr. Double,
at least for a while g. Hopefully he'll think about putting a little
effort into his posts to make them relevant and let the link follow
organically.

I don't worry about the veterans of the newsgroup, who, in the main
simply ignore him, but I worry about the newbies, who are better
directed to more substantial websites. Perhaps I shouldn't be
concerned about them, but I hope that a side benefit of the small
pressure that I put on Martin will encourage him to make his website
truly competitive with the better sites out there. It's just not even
close. and frankly, given the way that he promotes the site, I'm not
likely to give him hits periodically to check out what kind of
progress he's making, which is sad for him, because it's the folks
like me who stick it out on this newsgroup that supply a steady stream
of income/ego-producing hits over the long haul.

BTW, monthly announcements about updates on the newsletter aren't
really substantive either. Do we really want people with websites to
post such announcements everytime they update their sites? I think
not.

I grow one along side my fireplace. It has a very large bloom that
always gets compliments...[It's also near a window, but they need
minimal sun.

They are also susceptable to the things like afflict other
houseplants, such as spider mites. Generally, air circulation isn't
good enough for roses. If you can master container gardening, you
MIGHT be able to move a potted rose indoors for short periods of time,
but keep in mind that you are exposing your other indoor plants to
possible outdoor pests, and/or exposing your rose to indoor-prone
pests like spider mites. To bring them indoors though means lots of
artificial light (or direct sunlight through a picture window), plus
the fact that roses thrive at much higher "growing season" temps than
the usual low 70s (and low humidity) of the indoors. If you have a
sunroom, you might be able to pull this off, but you might find it
uncomfortable to lounge around in there at temperatures that roses
enjoy. Remember too, that most roses need at least 4-6 hours of direct
sunlight. They also need LOTS of air circulation.

Roses are really outdoor plants, but some have been somewhat
successful at bringing them indoors. It takes a lot of work and a
little bit of luck as well.

Okay if hybrid teas or other full size roses won't work would there be
suitable miniature varieties that would meet the requirements in my
intial post? What sort of care would it entail? I would be leaning
toward ones that would easily thrive and bloom if possible.

On 18 Jul 2005 20:26:19 -0700, "Blah" wrote:



They are also susceptable to the things like afflict other
houseplants, such as spider mites. Generally, air circulation isn't
good enough for roses. If you can master container gardening, you
MIGHT be able to move a potted rose indoors for short periods of time,
but keep in mind that you are exposing your other indoor plants to
possible outdoor pests, and/or exposing your rose to indoor-prone
pests like spider mites. To bring them indoors though means lots of
artificial light (or direct sunlight through a picture window), plus
the fact that roses thrive at much higher "growing season" temps than
the usual low 70s (and low humidity) of the indoors. If you have a
sunroom, you might be able to pull this off, but you might find it
uncomfortable to lounge around in there at temperatures that roses
enjoy. Remember too, that most roses need at least 4-6 hours of direct
sunlight. They also need LOTS of air circulation.

Roses are really outdoor plants, but some have been somewhat
successful at bringing them indoors. It takes a lot of work and a
little bit of luck as well.

Okay if hybrid teas or other full size roses won't work would there be
suitable miniature varieties that would meet the requirements in my
intial post? What sort of care would it entail? I would be leaning
toward ones that would easily thrive and bloom if possible.

The same problems hold true for miniature as they do for larger ones,
but it's a little easier to get them more light (because you can get
them closer to the window, and or provide artificial light), PLUS,
it's easier to take them in and out.

If you're looking for a rose to be a permanent indoor plant, I think
you're going to be disappointed. Having said that, a miniature potted
rose is pretty cheap and you can easily replace them as you learn what
works and doesn't work.

Here are the main problems, restated:

Low humidity
Temperature (no variation in temperature)
Lack of light
Lack of "fresh air"/the effect of air conditioning (this is part of
the first two items as well)
Susceptability to spider mites and other indoor problems

All of these can be addressed, but fixing the first two things make it
uncomfortable for the human occupants. Roses CAN be acclimated over
time, but they are finicky little things.

The problem with temperature is the same that plagues orchid growers.
Most orchids need cooler temps at night and roses are no exceptions,
although they don't need the dramatic swings that orchids do.

One thing you could do is to keep them healthy as long as you can and
then if they start to decline, simply transplant them to the garden
and start with a new plant.

Just remember, there's a reason that they're called OUTDOOR plants.

After having written this, I searched for some links that might help
you:

http://www.rosemania.com/Growing_Minis_Indoors.htm
http://www.ars.org/About_Roses/miniatures_indoors.htm
http://www.mgs.md.gov/mdrose/docs/indorminis.pdf

Oh those stoners just make up those stories about the marijuana police because they're
mentally impaired and ignorant. I would however recommend against buying about 50 lights, and
renting an entire house for a rose operation using an assumed name.


: Just be ready for some scrutiny from the authorities, who look for
: such purchases, although in quantities necessary to grow a couple of
: roses, it might not make a difference.
:
: I suspect that roses wouldn't do very well hydroponically. It has all
: of those really fine feeder roots that woudn't probably do well in
: water, although it's just an uneducated guess.