Albedo

Don't worry hamad I'm not trying to derail you - another translation a·sex·u·al (-sksh-l) adj. 1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless. 2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding. 3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a·sexu·ali·ty (-l-t) n. a·sexu·al·ly adv. Number 3 offers a source of fun and amusement but I shall resist!

Just a translation for us normal mortals. saprobe [ˈsæprəʊb] n (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Plants) an organism, esp a fungus, that lives on decaying organisms; a saprotroph See also saprophyte [from Greek, from sapro- + bios life] saprobic adj

Don't blame me mate, got my gravitropism off Tony, I'm sure your geotropism is right. The necrotrophism one , I made it up. You have an advantage as your'e hitting the books at the moment, and this is your niche area. Was just playing around, sorry I can't easily get into looking all this up (everything in storage) as I have either forgotten, or didn't know in the first place. I will now look up saprobe on tinternet.

As a mycophobe in a mycophilic thread, would I be right in assuming that the gravitropic nature of this mycelium suggests photophobia and necrotrophism ?

OOOOh this hurts Hamad you are right and I am wrong. I just looked it up on my very slow connection on wikipedia, as all my books are in storage. Phototrophic (with an h) means light feeding Phototropic (without the h) means light seeking You spelt it without an h, I checked. I have no alternative but to apologise for my arrogance and ignorance. However, my point stands about your attitude and we will lock horns again after I have retired for a while to lick my wounds.

May be out of context here as keep losing my connection, Nice try Hamad. phototrophic means ‘light feeding’, the branch and the tree is already phototrophic, not ‘gone phototrophic’. For ‘light seeking’ we need another word. Not your changing of the meaning of a word in order to make yourself appear important. – Fact.

Lost my connection, some have commented on the original thread but I threw the gauntlet down and although your response (Hamad) is chilled, I don't think its time for a hand shake yet. Don't understand the fishing reference. In one of my versions of my original post, I was going to say what SWB said, but edited it out as it was getting a bit long. All your threads are entertaining because of your total disregard for what everybody else says. This needs to be sorted out, if not now then When? On reductions. Yes respect for posting etc but wheres my response to your pointless use of elevated language. Phototrophic branches etc.

Hey Hamad. Did you count to ten before you wrote that response like I said. I'm making an effort here mate. How about we chill out now and discuss this calmly. Thank you by the way for my first WTF I've always wanted one of those.

Cheers rob, my nads were awaiting a crushing!! I don't want hamad to be the but of it all, but I was using this thread, to try to say something that I believed needed saying. I won't respond to all the other post's but some chuckles have been had, and my nads had a reprieve. Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable Monkey d, it just came out.

OK nailer, I promise. I'm glad that you started the response to that one with a light hearted one, somehow I'm expecting a caneing now.

No nailer just knocking on a bit, so maybe I seen some things before. In Hamads 700 posts, Thats the picture I've got, I've been wondering whether to say it or not for a while. I myself could have been much more verbose in my making of this point, but I've tried to keep it simple. Its screaming at me that he wants Monkey D status in a hurry. I've tried to refrain from saying that, but now I've said it.

Didn’t say it was bad work Hamadryad, merely pointing out an apparent contradiction, in your working philosophy. For the record - I agree with Geoff who said ‘yes it’s been fleeced, but done nicely’ You talk about retaining the phototrophic lower limbs in a couple of your posts (8 and 56). In post 56 you say “It is only those 2 or 3 phototrophic limbs that have very little growth on them”. Phototrophic – An organism that manufactures its own food from inorganic substances using light for energy, Green plants, certain algae, and photosynthetic bacteria are phototrophs. (The American Heritage Science Dictionary). I know you like big words but it is difficult to see what you mean. The whole tree is phototrophic. If you are saying the lower limbs had less growth on them due to lack of light, then why not just say so. Contradiction and Excess Verbosity. What happened, did you swallow a dictionary ? It is not my aim to wage a personal war on you, although it must seem that way. You have such potential to be a huge and valuable contributor to arbtalk and to the industry. Its blatantly clear to me that you are trying to be something that you are not. That is why you are falling out with everybody all the time. Just be yourself, calm down, chill out. Its also clear to me that theres a good, honest, nice person in there. I would also ask that you don’t come straight back and argue this last paragraph with me, just think about it for a while – then bite my head off if you like.

Quote. Hamadryad - 09.01.10 - in “Fullcrown reductions on pine trees” post 51. “The customer is not always right, that’s what you’re there for …… There is no excuse for bad work . Period” Quote Hamadryad - 13.01.10 in this thread “So the guy says take as much as you can off the tree, cut it as hard back from neighbours as poss” Quote Hamadryad - “ I would have cut off less, but he specifically demanded as much as possible …… When clients make the spec that’s their doing …. Which is it to be hamadryad ?????

Something constructive I could add, for those not familiar with doing CIS on your online assessment. A box is provided where you enter the amount you have been deducted. It deducts it from your bill and refunds if you have paid too much. I got a cheque from IRS direct into my account for overpaid CIS within a short time of submitting my return for last year. I do it in April while its all fresh in my head. Personally I don't like CIS just like SWB and some others. We as tree surgeons should be exempt. But then everything everyone is saying in this thread then applies....

That confirms my suspicions Rupe. Everybody is right including me. In fact I'm especially, more right, as I said it first!

It's sounding like I might have to retract my accusation of "not rightness" SWB and replace it with "you might be rightness" . smiley, (hard to do them in quick reply on my crappy tinternet connection)

I was just thinking that mozza, it could be different in the frozen northlands, they get away with all sorts up there!!!

When I came across CIS I phoned up the CIS office and everything Rupe is saying is what they said, pretty much word for word. Sorry to cross swords with you on our first meeting SWB, but Rupes right and your'e not so right mate. Perhaps you had too many chocky treats today and the sugar is having its effect. Smiley.

Cheers Tony and Skyhuck. I was blanking on that one, Think I will remember which way round it is in future.

oops, think flora is animals , should read 'Fauna' in above post. Or just 'tree' might be simpler

You are both right Skyhuck and DMC Skyhuck is right in that what we do – reduction, thinning etc is, often, not what the tree itself needs to have done to it. Therefore, by extension, naming yourself “xxx Tree Care”, often feels hypocritical. My firm is called “xxx Tree Care” and I often feel a little bit hypocritical as the work I carry out can hardly be described as ‘care’, solely in respect of the tree itself. However part of D Mc‘s point is that it does, in the context of trees and buildings, constitute a compromise between the wants of the tree and the wants of the offending building or structure or client. Said works may lead to the extension of the life of the tree within this environment etc Scots Pines are a good example as they get very big. Too big for urban environments. They survive being topped (which in this case is what reduction is), and can still look ok (arguably). The customer still has a tree. People are selfish, they will not replant. They do not give a xxx about the future, they want it now!!!! Perhaps we should have, “xxxx Urban Flora Conflict Resolution Specialist” written on our trucks

Kinojango . I sympathise with your position, changing careers at 34. But I guess you have to accept that the building trade is shagged at the moment, so bang goes your 130 quid a day, and our industry just doesn't pay as well.

That makes sense Rupe, although I did have to read it 3 times. You are my poster of the year by the way for your first post in Tony S's thread 'our industry' I would print it out and put it on my shed wall, except my printers knackered and I don't have a shed.

In my oppinion, the best groundie is another climber - end of!!! This is mainly because, only another climber really knows how it is in the tree, for lowering opperations etc. This does not mean that I do not appreciate that grounding is a skilled job, and a good groundie worth his weight in gold. A guy round here, has his own tree business, but also freelances. He is a climber with loads of gear and skillls etc and charges 80 for grounding and 120 for climbing. Thats my tupence worth.