[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] low light
just my 0.02. you know i used think Tom hated me over at APC. But I
realized after talking with some people, that I just wasnt used to the
way Tom talks in type. I really doubt he was trying to belittle anyone.
even in the midst of a discussion on verying popular methods of
fertilization, where tom was getting outright attacked I've never seen
him actually try to belittle anyone. In fact he actually encouraged some
of them not to give up on it who were having trouble. i'm just saying
that its easy to take something in type the wrong way because theres no
Jerry Baker wrote:
>Thomas Barr wrote:
>>So all those folks counting watts, lumens, little physicists, might want to focus on good CO2/nutrients routines learned at high light, and applying them to low/er light.
>Does taking jabs at people make your plants grow better?
>Most people don't care about the nitty-gritty details, and that's
>absolutely fine. You appear to be one of them. What I don't understand
>is why you are belittling the idea that hypotheses should be tested
>before being represented as fact.
>Growing plant X under Y lights doesn't tell us anything useful without
>further information. The only way to find out what is relevant and what
>isn't is with controlled studies, or at least semi-controlled. The last
>thing I would have expected to hear on this list is somebody discounting
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com