Access via Google
 

In message , Sacha
writes
No, Alan, I'm sorry if this irks you but no, I will not. This group had a
reputation for excellence at one time. The advice it gave was good,
impartial and carefully considered. If one person was contradicted by
another, there was no display of fireworks and histrionics but more usually,
"do you think so?" "you might be right" "I don't agree" and always with
good reasons given even allowing for the odd tetchy moment. The more the
kill file is employed the more the disrupter wins the day because members do
not see what is going on in their name. That is *precisely* why urg has
reached this all time low. Too many long time urglers don't see what is
happening.

Sacha - unfortunately the current disruption to urg is not one sided.
La Puce responds to requests for information and you and some others
point out her inaccuracies. That in itself is fair enough but you and I
both know that it is frequently done in such a way as to elicit a
reaction - just as La Puce uses text that she knows will cause you to
react. There are now a few people who post regularly on this ng who
seem to enjoy annoying each other which is, at best, pointless and has
all too frequently descended into prolonged bickering.

Where someone makes a post that is considered to be incorrect all that
is necessary is to post a response indicating an alternative viewpoint -
without raising the temperature - and then move on - both views are
expressed and it is up to the reader to decide which they choose to
accept. No individual posting to a ng posts in the name of other
'members' of the ng. Everyone is entitled to make known their opinion
(hopefully in a manner that is not going to intentionally annoy others)
but it is only their opinion.

Killfiles do have a use and judicious use may help restore urg to its
former more pleasant self.
--
Robert

Access via Google
 

"La Puce" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 13 Mar, 18:20, "Sue" wrote:
One of the very earliest I remember was about rhododendrons and how long
they take to flower from seed. See the thread titled 'shrub ID please'
from November 2005.

Oh I remember indeed! It was a plant ID - it was a rhodo and Ruppert
thought it was a skimmia. Then he realised it wasn't. I then thought
about potash since it didn't flower and because it was a rhodo from
seed and it was very young I did mentioned that it took 2 to 3 years
to flower from seeds, which they do.

No they don't.

Cutting from mature plants resume flowering in 2-3 years.

Web references suggest that seedlings only flower when mature, normally a
minimum of 3-5 years in ideal propagation and growing conditions

pk

Access via Google
 

On 14 Mar, 14:15, "p.k." wrote:
it was a rhodo from
seed and it was very young I did mentioned that it took 2 to 3 years
to flower from seeds, which they do.

No they don't.
Cutting from mature plants resume flowering in 2-3 years.

FROM SEEDS!!

Do escuse me for shouting everyone. The windows are open and spring is
wafting through. Glorious. I felt like being loud :o)

Web references suggest that seedlings only flower when mature, normally a
minimum of 3-5 years in ideal propagation and growing conditions

FROM SEEDS please. What are you web references saying about the time
scale (approx) for rhodo flowering from SEEDS?

Access via Google
 

La Puce wrote:
On 14 Mar, 14:15, "p.k." wrote:
it was a rhodo from
seed and it was very young I did mentioned that it took 2 to 3 years
to flower from seeds, which they do.

No they don't.
Cutting from mature plants resume flowering in 2-3 years.

FROM SEEDS!!

Do escuse me for shouting everyone. The windows are open and spring is
wafting through. Glorious. I felt like being loud :o)

Web references suggest that seedlings only flower when mature,
normally a minimum of 3-5 years in ideal propagation and growing
conditions

FROM SEEDS please. What are you web references saying about the time
scale (approx) for rhodo flowering from SEEDS?


the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle
on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings


a brief google give me loads of references to growing Rhodos form seed all
suggesting at least 3 years with ideal propogation conditions.



see; http://www.tjhsst.edu/~dhyatt/seeds.html which has "Rhododendrons can
flower in 3 to 4 years from seed "

http://www.victoriarhodo.ca/Archives/PropGrp.htm has "Growing rhodos from
seeds poses different challenges and requires patience, because many years
can go by before the first flowering"

http://kanawhamastergardeners.homest...opagation.html has "Native
deciduous azaleas, if watered and fertilized can produce limited flowers in
3 years from seed germination.

I can't find any that suggest that 2-3 years is the norm for rododendron

i'd be grateful for your sources that sugget 2-3 years, it would be
intersting to know the techniques used



pk

Access via Google
 

On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote:
the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle
on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings

No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my
frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back
into this at all. Thanks :o)

Access via Google
 

On Mar 14, 4:18 pm, "p.k." wrote:
I can't find any that suggest that 2-3 years is the norm for rododendron

i'd be grateful for your sources that sugget 2-3 years, it would be
intersting to know the techniques used

pk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks p.k. for that info I actually asked for some answers to
Martin's posting but you have answered it here. It says on all the
links you gave that it takes at least 3 years for seeds to flower
which I think, for me is a bit long so I will go with cuttings and see
what happens.

Thanks

Judith

Access via Google
 

La Puce wrote:
On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote:
the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine
to settle on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings

No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my
frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back
into this at all. Thanks :o)

your frustration was, from my reading of the thread, that you got it wrong
and were unwilling to take the guidance and advice of those more
knowledgably and experienced. & you insisted in the face of all evidence and
argument that you were right.

I have presented well sourced and referenced information indicating 3-4
years minimum from seed and . I am genuinely interested to know where you
got your original information that from seed Rhododendron takes 2-3 years to
flower.

pk

Access via Google
 

On Mar 14, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 09:59:36 -0700, "La Puce" wrote:

On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote:
the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle
on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings

No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my
frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back
into this at all. Thanks :o)

Watch this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

Did it remind you of cultural differences?

Lovely, but I wish I knew how to turn the sound up!!!

Judith

Access via Google
 

On Mar 14, 5:46 pm, Martin wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 10:35:26 -0700, "





wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:10 pm, wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 09:59:36 -0700, "La Puce" wrote:

On 14 Mar, 16:18, "p.k." wrote:
the thread that was referenced, seemed so far as i could determine to settle
on 2-3 years from propogated cuttings

No it wasn't. It was from seeds. And that's the whole point of my
frustration then. So please pk, I really really don't want to go back
into this at all. Thanks :o)

Watch this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

Did it remind you of cultural differences?

Lovely, but I wish I knew how to turn the sound up!!!

On your WinXP menu bar at the bottom of the screen is a loud speaker
symbol/icon.
If you click on that a volume level thing pops up.
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual, thank you!!

Judith

Access via Google
 

Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "
contains these words:

On Mar 14, 4:18 pm, "p.k." wrote:
I can't find any that suggest that 2-3 years is the norm for
rododendron

i'd be grateful for your sources that sugget 2-3 years, it would be
intersting to know the techniques used

Thanks p.k. for that info I actually asked for some answers to
Martin's posting but you have answered it here. It says on all the
links you gave that it takes at least 3 years for seeds to flower
which I think, for me is a bit long so I will go with cuttings and
see what happens.
Thanks
Judith

Have you ever tried air-layering before, Judith?

Air layering is by far the best method. Easy & trouble free.

pk

Access via Google
 

Anne Jackson wrote:

Have you ever tried air-layering before, Judith?

Air layering is by far the best method. Easy & trouble free.

I've tried pegging down some of the lower branches, with some success,
but not all rhoddies are co-operative enough to _have_ low branches!
G

Ah!

There is "layering" and "air-layering"

In the first you peg down in the second, well follow this link it expalins
it far better thi I can:
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/e.../airlayer.html

pk

Access via Google
 

Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "p.k." contains these
words:
Anne Jackson wrote:

Have you ever tried air-layering before, Judith?

Air layering is by far the best method. Easy & trouble free.

I've tried pegging down some of the lower branches, with some
success, but not all rhoddies are co-operative enough to _have_ low
branches! G

Ah!

There is "layering" and "air-layering"

In the first you peg down in the second, well follow this link it
expalins it far better thi I can:
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/e.../airlayer.html

Hmmmm! Have you recently attempted to instruct your grandmother
in the art of sucking eggs?

Thanks for the unnecessary sarcasm.

I won't bother next time

pk

Access via Google
 

On 14 Mar, 17:10, wrote:
Watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk
Did it remind you of cultural differences?

LOL!! Marvelous. Ta :o))

Access via Google
 

On 14 Mar, 17:13, "p.k." wrote:
I have presented well sourced and referenced information indicating 3-4
years minimum from seed and . I am genuinely interested to know where you
got your original information that from seed Rhododendron takes 2-3 years to
flower.

Are you a joke or something? Are you trying to drive me mad? :o)) Read
what you have written. You first said that the discussion was about
flowering period from cuttings. Then in another post it's from seeds.
Then I said 2-3 years to flower from seeds, you reply it's 3-4 yeasrs,
and you then ask me to show you evidence to support my theory that
it's 2-3 years.....

pk, I'm sorry but there's no clocks on a rhodo. If your books or
google says to you it's around 3-4 years, and my reference says around
2-3 years, why don't we just agree that it's around 2-4 years and we
go on with our lives?

I need to go now, and watch paint dry.

Access via Google
 

La Puce wrote:
On 14 Mar, 17:13, "p.k." wrote:
I have presented well sourced and referenced information indicating
3-4 years minimum from seed and . I am genuinely interested to know
where you got your original information that from seed Rhododendron
takes 2-3 years to flower.

Are you a joke or something? Are you trying to drive me mad? :o)) Read
what you have written. You first said that the discussion was about
flowering period from cuttings. Then in another post it's from seeds.
Then I said 2-3 years to flower from seeds, you reply it's 3-4 yeasrs,
and you then ask me to show you evidence to support my theory that
it's 2-3 years.....

pk, I'm sorry but there's no clocks on a rhodo. If your books or
google says to you it's around 3-4 years, and my reference says around
2-3 years, why don't we just agree that it's around 2-4 years and we
go on with our lives?

I need to go now, and watch paint dry.

I've been observing your repeated spats with a number of people, only having
brecome aware of the trouble in here quite recently.

I thought I'd give you a chance...

From your beligerent repsonses to very gentle probes, your and failure to
support your "advice" with any sources I'm afraid i have to agree with the
many posters who find your style objectionable. URG is about sharing and
discussing not about propounding pet theories (your word) unsupported by
evidence.

Have a nice day.

pk