"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , pied piper
writes
So all the experts are wrong about fertiliser and you are right dont be so
cynical

I wish people would post reasoning in support of their diktats. The only
way I can judge whether PP's or Mike's advice is the better is by the
supporting arguments and respective posting histories on urg - in this
respect Mike has the edge!


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

So the last 25 years I have been wrong to feed my golf greens,bowling
greens,cricket squares,football pitches,rugby pitches,ornamental lawns and
various other turf areas.

On 24/11/05 6:14 pm, in article ,
"pied piper" wrote:


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , pied piper
writes
So all the experts are wrong about fertiliser and you are right dont be so
cynical

I wish people would post reasoning in support of their diktats. The only
way I can judge whether PP's or Mike's advice is the better is by the
supporting arguments and respective posting histories on urg - in this
respect Mike has the edge!


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

So the last 25 years I have been wrong to feed my golf greens,bowling
greens,cricket squares,football pitches,rugby pitches,ornamental lawns and
various other turf areas.


As Kay says, we know Mike Lyle and the quality of his advice. With respect
to you, we know nothing about you, other than that you appear to want an
argument, and that's rather tiresome if you can't back up your 'expertise'
with some hard information. And we only have your (unknown) word for the
rather sweeping claims you make above.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote:
On 24/11/05 6:14 pm, in article
, "pied piper"
wrote:


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , pied piper
writes
So all the experts are wrong about fertiliser and you are right
dont be so cynical

I wish people would post reasoning in support of their diktats.
The
only way I can judge whether PP's or Mike's advice is the better
is
by the supporting arguments and respective posting histories on
urg
- in this respect Mike has the edge!


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the
river"

So the last 25 years I have been wrong to feed my golf
greens,bowling
greens,cricket squares,football pitches,rugby pitches,ornamental
lawns and various other turf areas.


As Kay says, we know Mike Lyle and the quality of his advice. With
respect to you, we know nothing about you, other than that you
appear
to want an argument, and that's rather tiresome if you can't back
up
your 'expertise' with some hard information. And we only have your
(unknown) word for the rather sweeping claims you make above.

This is kind of fellow-urglers. I'll absolutely stand by my thinking
on the specific original question. On the broader issue of whether
lawns are often over-fed, I stand by that, too. But PP has a point
when it comes to those sports surfaces which have their top growth
removed very often (in some, I've heard, several times a day!) and
very short. These are special cases. First-class cricket pitches in
particular are plain weird, horticulturally speaking. But we were
talking about a _lawn_. I think it's highly misguided to treat all
grassed areas the same way: with a "one size fits all" policy he's
probably wasting money at best.

--
Mike.

On 24/11/05 7:27 pm, in article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

Sacha wrote:
On 24/11/05 6:14 pm, in article
, "pied piper"
wrote:


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , pied piper
writes
So all the experts are wrong about fertiliser and you are right
dont be so cynical

I wish people would post reasoning in support of their diktats.
The
only way I can judge whether PP's or Mike's advice is the better
is
by the supporting arguments and respective posting histories on
urg
- in this respect Mike has the edge!


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the
river"

So the last 25 years I have been wrong to feed my golf
greens,bowling
greens,cricket squares,football pitches,rugby pitches,ornamental
lawns and various other turf areas.


As Kay says, we know Mike Lyle and the quality of his advice. With
respect to you, we know nothing about you, other than that you
appear
to want an argument, and that's rather tiresome if you can't back
up
your 'expertise' with some hard information. And we only have your
(unknown) word for the rather sweeping claims you make above.

This is kind of fellow-urglers. I'll absolutely stand by my thinking
on the specific original question. On the broader issue of whether
lawns are often over-fed, I stand by that, too. But PP has a point
when it comes to those sports surfaces which have their top growth
removed very often (in some, I've heard, several times a day!) and
very short. These are special cases. First-class cricket pitches in
particular are plain weird, horticulturally speaking. But we were
talking about a _lawn_. I think it's highly misguided to treat all
grassed areas the same way: with a "one size fits all" policy he's
probably wasting money at best.

And that strikes me as very fair comment.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Logic (doesn't always apply in gardening I know, but) would imply that
a certain amount of 'starvation' might make the roots grow a bit more
in search of nutrients


....just my 2p's worth

The message
from "pied piper" contains these words:
"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , pied piper
writes
So all the experts are wrong about fertiliser and you are right dont be so
cynical

I wish people would post reasoning in support of their diktats. The only
way I can judge whether PP's or Mike's advice is the better is by the
supporting arguments and respective posting histories on urg - in this
respect Mike has the edge!


So the last 25 years I have been wrong to feed my golf greens,bowling
greens,cricket squares,football pitches,rugby pitches,ornamental lawns and
various other turf areas.

That rather depends when you were feeding them, with what, and how much.
Yo chip in with a comment and get an adverse reaction, then you come
back with a sweeping statement which has no relevance to the previous
discussion.

You remind me of the person who accused me of 'spreading germs about'
when I squeezed out the washing-up mop and fluffed it out, to allow air
into it.

I told him that it prevented anaerobic bacteria from multiplying amongst
the wet fibres. He really didn't like being contradicted - pointed at
the St' John's badge on his uniform and asked: "What do you think this
is?"

What the knowall didn't know was that I also had a St. John's
certificate, and knew that such topics were no part of the first-aid
syllabus...

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/