[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Dan Q. and User116155
> From: Dan Q <dqallwet at avana_net>
Apparently, Dan came to this list in a defensive mode. About what, I'm
not too sure. He stated earlier that some wacko kept harassing him.
(evidently by private e-mail)
> Still being in somewhat of a defensive mode, it's real tempting to ask
> some of you academic experts that are wrapped tightly to a more hi-tech
> approach, why you need to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in
> equipment to aid you to get plants to grow when you could do it for
> under $50.00 to $100.00 in most aquaruiums? Actually, I know the answer
> so you need not respond.
Are you saying that we can all grow plants just as well for $50.00 to
$100.00?
Some plants maybe, all plants, I seriously doubt. I'm a fan of CO2
myself. Although, I can (and have) grown plants without it. For me, I
get much better results with it. We're talking _much better_ here.
> I would have enjoyed sharing the reason why I use kitty litter, but it
> was so arrogantly dismissed by one whose reputation is not questioned,
An apparent reference to Karen Randall. Dismissed yes, arrogant no, and
we have all seen and read plenty about that lately. BTW, it's hard to
make friends when you start by slamming one of the more respected
members of this list.
> Based on my own personal experience, I
> would have also agreed with her suggestions that there are substrates
> better for growing plants.
Then, what's the deal? Why are we discussing kitty litter if (as you
have agreed above) there are better substrates out there? Let's discuss
what you would consider to be the optimal substrate and why.
> Then there is Osmocote.
> Now I know that
> this is not nearly as much fun as tracking down your own chemicals,
> brewing up batches, storing it, and dosing (I forget how often). I also
> realize that the plants may not be as succulent (I don't really know),
I have no idea about Osmocote. I haven't tried it. I use PMDD myself,
and no, it's not really that much fun to try to find the ingredients
for, but I believe it is as good as any fertilizer additive ever
invented. (When properly dosed) However, I like to keep an open mind,
and I would have no problem with trying Osmocote should you and a few
others have success with it.
> I also want to point out that the
> hobby/industry including the fish and plant farms had very little help
> from the academic side in the first 1/2 of its life span.
> The sub point here, is that you don't need academic training to enjoy
> this hobby or discover different methods of operation.
>I think simple, inexpensive,
> non-technical, but easy to replicate methods will be the key to that
> end. Where the hobbiest goes from there is fine with me. I could use
> help from anyone, even the academic community, in this pursuit.
What's with the chip on your shoulder here?
Did someboby from the academic community kick your dog or what?
Academics are not good or bad. They're people. That's it.
> 1. Do you have any interest in seeing this hobby grow?
Yes.
> 2. If so, how do you think it will be accomplished?
By enabling folks to be successful at growing aquatic plants. That's
what I see as the purpose of this list. Many people, myself included
here, owe their success to the people on this list. Possibly, my
successful plant growing could have taken place through trial and error,
but I prefer to let other folks endure trials and commit errors. By
sharing experiences, we can stop making the same mistakes over and over,
and at least make new ones.
> 3. Do you acknowledge low-tech as a viable alternative?
Yep. If that's what turns your crank, then go for it. Do you acknowledge
Hi-tech, medium-tech?
> 4. If so, what form?
As an earlier poster said, "whatever works". Unless someone comes
forward with a one-size-fits-all low tech approach. Are you ready to do
that?
> Best to you all,
> Dan Quackenbush
Stick around Dan, I'm pretty sure that you can say anything you want, as
long as you aren't personally attacking someone, and as long as you have
the facts to back up your position.
Now a note to User116155 at aol_com, What's with the name? I don't trust
folks that won't look me in the eye when they talk to me. What's worse,
I'm beginning to suspect that you might be "John".