[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 
>that idea.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com