Jump to content

Ivy IS a real problem


CambridgeJC
 Share

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, CambridgeJC said:

Your final sentence includes a highly provocative suggestion that directly goes against your own posting guidelines. Designed to belittle me and suggest that my own posts are designed to belittle others. Please explain why you decided to send that parting shot because this is not the measured reply of a fair and impartial administrator or moderator. Please read paragraph 4 especially of those guidelines. You seem happy enough to allow someone to call me unhinged in this public forum which I found abusive. 
Maybe this is because I am a new visitor here from outside your arborist community?  You may need to follow the posting trail to discover action and reaction. I came here in good faith but have not enjoyed the behaviour of some contributors. Sorry to say this. John

This should be interesting...

 

It's fair to say that you've been dismissed by a few including myself as an irritating poster with little merit to the conversation that makes this forum enjoyable to many.

 

This has possibly been because of your dismissive or provocative attitude to the time served tree workers who have wasted their time replying to you when it doesn't suit your narrative.

 

It's nothing to do with your lack of arb background. There's plenty of long standing contributors who aren't in the arb industry specifically. It's to do with your attitude. You ask for opinions and demand credentials from those who reply, and yet you offer nothing in return.

 

This whole post is pointless though. People like yourself are incapable of introspect.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CambridgeJC said:

Bioscience. Why do you ask? Is this the beginning of a mature discussion on ivy? Or a continuation of the anti-scientist dismissal of someone who is not an arborist. Someone who explicitly stated this in his original quest for help for facts and opinions from arborists?

Someone who has gained a great deal of information since making contact with this forum. I look forward to a friendly discussion with knowledgeable people who accept people with different views and perspectives. We are all never too old to learn. None of us know everything even after 30 years or more in any discipline. Friend or foe?

I posted an observation about an FC woodland a few posts back but you seem to have ignored it . Maybe because , in this instance it did counter your argument  ?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most scientists are normally more rational and objective?

 

You have a hypothesis about ivy but have jumped to a conclusion without citing much evidence apart from casual observations.

 

Any links to interesting scientific papers on ivy which I posted  you haven't  engaged with, maybe you didn't bother to read them?

 

I already posted this one:

 

 

Quote

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of woody liana species has been widely observed across the neotropics, but observations from temperate regions are comparatively rare. On the basis of a resurvey database of 1814 (quasi-)permanent plots from across 40 European study sites, with a median between-survey interval of 38 years, and ranging from 1933 (earliest initial survey) to 2015 (most recent resurvey), we found that liana occurrence has also increased in the understories of deciduous temperate forests in Europe. Ivy (Hedera helix) is largely responsible for driving this increase across space and time, as its proportional occurrence has grown by an average of 14% per site. Enhanced warming rates, increased shade, and historical management transitions explain only some of the variation in ivy frequency response across the dataset, despite surveys coming from across continental gradients of environmental conditions. Uncovering the mechanisms underlying ivy expansion, and the potential consequences for forest structure and functioning, requires further research. Given the magnitude of increases in understory ivy frequency and its possible impacts, scientists, policy makers, and resource managers must be mindful of the patterns, processes, and implications of potential “lianification” of temperate forests.

 

 

Edited by Stere
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stere said:

Most scientists are normally more rational and objective?

 

You have a hypothesis about ivy but have jumped to a conclusion without citing much evidence apart from casual observations.

 

Any links to interesting scientific papers on ivy which I posted  you haven't  engaged with, maybe you didn't bother to read them?

 

I already posted this one:

 

 

 

 

What have we got?

What's changed and why?

Are we going to do anything about it and who's paying?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CambridgeJC said:

Your final sentence includes a highly provocative suggestion that directly goes against your own posting guidelines. Designed to belittle me and suggest that my own posts are designed to belittle others. Please explain why you decided to send that parting shot because this is not the measured reply of a fair and impartial administrator or moderator. Please read paragraph 4 especially of those guidelines. You seem happy enough to allow someone to call me unhinged in this public forum which I found abusive. 
Maybe this is because I am a new visitor here from outside your arborist community?  You may need to follow the posting trail to discover action and reaction. I came here in good faith but have not enjoyed the behaviour of some contributors. Sorry to say this. John

Aye up your back again,now who,s doing the trolling then?thought you had long gone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

It’s not really about Ivy anymore for this bloke is it?

Sasly no. You managed to push it off course by your personal remarks and attempts to belittle your target who you consider an outsider who you assume has no knowledge and who you believe does not have the right to observe something you clearly have never considered seriously before and which you enjoy bating. Your behaviour breaches basic rules of good respectful behaviour and the administration seems unwilling to review the evolution of the threads in which you clearly enjoy provocative personal remarks designed to belittle and raise a laugh with your colleague arborists. I am no different from many other contributors who prefer to protect themselves from more sinister personal abuse from people like you by maintaining a posting name only. Soon I will provide a bit more to show I am not a total dumbo as you would have me seem. Have a good laugh now. John. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug Tait said:

 

...Bioscientist? I don't know what that is I'm afraid.

A bod who studies stuff that lives, rather than test tubes and things you set fire to, or lecky-tricks, fizzicks and shit...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

  • Tip site reviews

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.