Managing Armillaria

[Fungus]

"I have ended reacting to any of your posts on this forum"

 

Be strong

 

Steve,

: as far as posts with a mycological, (forest or urban) ecological and arboricultural content are concerned.

[treeseer]

I agree with Steve, Gerrit, we need to be strong! Steve cut another thread that got too emotional, yet allows ad hominem chitchat below arbtalk standards here. His sandbox, his call, (we all do like your pictures) but there are limits to how low civilized chat can go, on this end of the chat.

 

"I have ended reacting to any of your posts on this forum, nor to enlighten you... on the subject of mycology or forest ecology."

 

That resolution did not last 3 days. Instead, the stated expertise greatly expanded, boldly going where no forest ecologist has gone before--now into urban arboriculture. 15,000 trees? If I've assessed an average of one a day I can top that (and I think I have but who gives a hoot). Numbers do not tell the story. And preemptive felling in the face of an opportunistic pathogen is not only daft, it's endarkenment!

 

So you took some walks with the Man in Black, impressive name to drop. I could drop a dozen or two, but 1 that's one of those limits, 2 Name dropping is another side of the ad hominem fallacy, and 3 names do not tell the story. 4 Unnamed gossips also do not tell the story either.

 

Speaking of names, Olaf Ribeiro, who I believe has spoken in England before, and wrote a book on Phytophthora, has found that ArborFos shows good efficacy against Armillaria, and hears that others are also getting good results with ArborFos against Armillaria."

 

Granted, these results are likely aided/caused? by exposure and exclusion.

 

This is just another example of treatment by those 1,000's of arborists willing to treat. Preemptive felling of uninfected trees remains undefendable...unless some of that German research confirms otherwise. Please cite or link any meaningful studies that meet the topic--ich sprechen genucht to get some of the gist, and mein deutsche freunden could confirm.

 

Please no more mere inventories by foresters, unless there is a real connection. Weak or irrelevant citations can be worse than none at all. Quantity is not quality. Piling it high and Deep and personal is not being mentally strong--sticking to the facts, is.

 

I am not downplaying the nitrification issue--it is real over here too. Pork producers pollute water, and air, and get away with it. But there's no preemptive felling of uninfected oaks and beeches here.

Edited May 30, 2012 by David Humphries
keeping the harmony alive !

[Fungus]

So you took some walks with the Man in Black, impressive name to drop. Name dropping is another side of the ad hominem fallacy

 

How about this for an ad hominem fallacy :

---

[Amelanchier]

Name dropping is another side of the ad hominem fallacy...

 

How about this for an ad hominem fallacy...

 

Technically, if name dropping were fallacious it would be due to an appeal to authority and subsequent association fallacy rather than ad hominem.

 

Just saying. Anyhow crack on. First person to mention Hitler loses...

Edited May 30, 2012 by Amelanchier

[HCR]

Technically, if name dropping were fallacious it would be due to an appeal to authority and subsequent association fallacy rather than ad hominem.

 

Just saying. Anyhow crack on. First person to mention Hitler loses...

 

:lol:

[Fungus]

Anyhow crack on. First person to mention Hitler loses...

 

Tony,

It must be my poor understanding of British humour and/or the experiences we Dutch had with the nazi's that I don't see the joke in this, so could you please enlighten me on the meaning of your above statement on Hitler and on who the first person is to mention he (= ?) loses.

[Amelanchier]

There is a principle in online discussions known as Godwins Law which states;

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

 

This can lead us to the amusingly titled reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in which one party likens the others opinion to Hitlers as a way of dismissing it out of hand; e.g., "Oh my god you don't believe in gravity do you? Hitler believed in gravity and he was an almighty [expletive]; it therefore follows that all people who believe in gravity are almighty [expletives]."

 

Therein lies the amusement. If not the amusement then an explanation at least!

Edited May 30, 2012 by Amelanchier

[Fungus]

There is a principle in online discussions known as Godwins Law which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

 

"... there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

 

Tony,

So you're the one losing whatever debate and finishing the thread by being the first to mention Hitler or did you think that the "Man in Black" was Hitler instead of Claus Mattheck, who by the way always wears brown leather clothing ?

Edited May 30, 2012 by Fungus

[Amelanchier]

Good effort. C+

 

One needs to be in the debate to lose it. I'm just scoring on the sidelines - though if the thread dies through my involvement I'd consider it a mercy killing.

 

As for 'The Man in Black' wasn't that Johnny Cash? Or even Will Smith?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

No thread to kill it died ages ago!!