For anyone who cares to comment to the GardenWeb Staff, I sent an e-mail complaining of the issue of (as Graham calls it) Lee's magnificent 5,6,7. The response I received is pasted below. If you comment to GardenWeb, please be sure to include the response number they give.

Like Graham, I also feel the forum is constantly being pulled off track by the posts of the im-posters.

Lee

The GW Staff response to my complaint:

"PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LINE IN ANY RESPONSE:

GardenWeb mail response mc200006232766ec rosa
Lee,
I would like to look into this, because, as you understand correctly, neither multiple memberships held by a single person, nor advertsing (disguised though it may be) is permitted in GardenWeb forums."

Ok - If not JOJG then what?

Am looking for a few good references. Was about to subscribe. My maples need "reduction" work. Where do I find the info?

Argue, but please lay down a bibliography so that I can find some answeres.

Jeepster,
JOJG is actually a GREAT reference, but it probably isn't the best source for information about Japanese maples. I recommend you visit the (unfairly maligned) Nancy Fier's website at Mountain Maples.com.

I appear to have been placed in the "Magnificent Five" group. Wow! I'm not sure why that other "Gang of Four" is so feverently against us, but I'm happy to stand in there with Herb, Bahama, Archer, and those other superheroes!

Keithnotrichardreallydoug:

As you know, Herb and Archer are not in part of the group.

Lee

Sorry, what I meant was "As you know, Herb and Archer are not part of the group."

For what its worth, here is an article based on what I was taught by Katsuoki Kawahara in Kyoto Japan, and have found to be true. This was written about 5 years ago, but I would change very little today.

Again I say, for whatever its worth...

Don,

That's an most interesting article. Just by way of comparison, I downloaded & printed it out and carefully compared it, side by side, with the Nancy Fiers article that was printed in the JOJG .

On numerous points the two articles contain very similar advice.
In light of your experience, combined with that of Nancy Frier, I think people can be assured that both articles are entirely sound.

Herb

Thank you Herb. Your words are flower petals on an otherwise distastful day for me.

Domo.

dp

"On numerous points the two articles contain very similar advice" with interest in your careful comparison I wonder what these points are Herb, was it the sketching?

I'm afraid I don't see the point of your question. Please explain what you are getting at.

Nothing complicated Herb, I was just wondering if the emphasis they both put on drawing the maple tree in advance of pruning was the similarity you were referring to.

Your reply puzzles me still more - one article emphasises drawing the maple tree before pruning, while the other doesn't mention it at all.

It seems from this that you may not have read the article in JOJG issue #16. Are you perhaps referring to a different article? If so, which issue was it in?

looking through the Mountain Maples articles on pruning... as an arborist, nurseryman, Journeyman, etc., I must really question a site that states that trees heal.
They don't. Never will. Trees do not heal. Ever.
Compartimentalization still leaves dead tissue inside the tree. This may cause eventual failure of the limb or tree. Since it did not 'grow out', it is still there and 'not healed'.
The wounds do grow over the dead cells, however the dead cells are still there, so are the pathogens.

Adding a sealant would need to be done as the wound is made as the compartimentalization process occurs as the wounding does. Disinfecting afterward is useless, and potentially damaging depending on the medium, whereas any sealants require to be akin to Goretex, allowing moisture out, but not in-- and are not petroleum based. Wax, is a good idea, been used in grafting forever, keeps water off, yet acting as a sealant is potentially more fatal.
Sealing more often seals pathogens inside between the sealant and wood, which acts as a vector for pathogens, which allows failure of the imbedded protective (compartimentalized) walls to weaken and fail at an unknown date in the future. Nor is it possible to completely sanitize tools, which act as a major vector for pathogens.
It is rather difficult to predict a 'systemic' pathogen, and odd that they feel that sealants would stop those specifically. On the other hand, every pathogen becomes systemic if it has covered the entire tree. Very nebulous phrasing that mixes root pathogens with airborne pathogens but it sure infers well.

Messy cuts,.. cleaned up with concave cutters, which pushes the compartimentalization deeper into the main trunks.. double wounding,.. good for bonsai where no structural strength is needed, and a method needed for pine, but potentially deadly for landscape maples,
etc.

nice site though, for the most part seems to be geared to bonsai advocates, try those things on landscape trees that need structural strength etc.,.. well,.. shrug, I suppose that people feel they have had everything addressed and this reads well. -good for Mountain Maples.
edzard

Edzard, thanks for the insights in to the pruning of bonsai vs landscape trees. Also on what consititutes "healing"...I hadn't thought of it that way.

"geared to bonsai advocates, try those things on landscape trees that need structural strength"

Edzard, although this does not create a hazard with bonsai (falling branch), it is not a good bonsai technique to practise.

As the tree continues to grow without the collar a visual weakness appears and ruins the feel of the tree being believable massive.

Gerald

Edzard says that that trees don't and never will, heal; that dead tissue may cause eventual failure of a limb or tree; and that it is impossible to completely sanitize tools, which act as a major vector for pathogens.

Does not this lead to the conclusion that the tree should never be pruned, ever?

chuckling, Gerald, agreed, yet could not make the blanket statement as some of the cuts shown in different photographs were better cut than others. (yikes!!!! and with a 'recommended' 7 point per inch blade,... aaaagggh! I thought gashing trees was obsolete)
Most of the collar was left on some, however, the recommended use of concave cutters on maples is questionable, as maples do not thicken as pine do.
(which I know you know, just clarifying for others)
-The removal of centers is not good for 'all' trees, maples are one of these, and there will be a flat area that shapes the future trunk as a rhombus rather than as a more desireable ovoid trunk. (I suspect I'm saying the same thing?)
The Viburnum's are another group this should not be practised upon, etc.

Herbie's feeling rhetorical?
edzard

Edzard -

If trees never heal and pruning tools cannot be sanitised, how can my question be dismissed as rhetorical?

Herb

Herb,
It was not dismissed. I responded.
You stated a conclusion which is evident. This makes it a rhetorical question.
edzard

Edzard,

It would be appreciated if you would address the matter of whether the impossibility of sterilising tools, combined with the 'fact' that trees never heal, makes tree pruning something to be avoided.

Herb

Herb,
because Man exists tree pruning is unavoidable.
edzard

Edzard,

We all know that.

What we need to learn is why you would base your condemnation of the Nancy Fier article on, inter alia, her reference to trees 'healing'. It certainly appears from your posting that you not only attach great importance to your statement that trees do not heal, but that you want people to think her advice has little worth since you wrote -

"looking through the Mountain Maples articles on pruning... as an arborist, nurseryman, Journeyman, etc., I must really question a site that states that trees heal.
They don't. Never will. Trees do not heal. Ever."

To Nancy Fier, and I suggest, to most gardeners, it is obvious that for all practical purposes trees pruned with care can and do heal.

Herb

Herb, when bones break the fusion becomes stronger.
When animal tissue is damaged it is replaced from the inside out.
This is healing and science.
When trees are damaged replacement tissue cannot be regrown and pushed out, rather it stays within, as a compartmented plug which is covered over by the cambium and as a result is weaker and will eventually fail due to that 'part of failure' or another that will superceed it in damages.
shrug, trees do not heal, they only cover over the damages.

Unfortunately this is not a definition for debate, as science and the U.S. legal system has already recognised that trees do not heal.

for whatever practical purposes you or anyone may have in mind, you would be providing a disservice to the public in furthering the notion that trees heal.

Why do you feel a need to "suggest, to most gardeners, it is obvious that for all practical purposes trees pruned with care can and do heal."

especially when the concept ties intrinsically to tree failure when someone has been told the 'tree healed' and was healthy,.. but it fell over from that wound that caused the hollow trunk 20 years ago.

I can hear the plaintiff, "but Herb told me it had healed and I read it on a website..."
and the Judge kindly leans forward raising an eyebrow, "and you believed them?"
-there is no debate here Herb, trees do not heal, nor will there ever be printed word that can show up in court that I in my professional capacity would ever imply that trees heal.

and so back to the question. What possible practical purpose (for people) would there be to say trees heal? and/or
Why do you feel a need to "suggest, to most gardeners, it is obvious that for all practical purposes trees pruned with care can and do heal."

how about 75 - 90 words on these subjects - since so far here, I'm the only one patiently explaining my position?
edzard

perhaps this site, Way of Maple is more suited to our needs in gardens whereas Nancy Fiers article and information is perhaps more for the bonsai-ist.
The miniaturization of the tree, brings it closer to having 'human' attributes applied to the tree, and in turn we also prune with human response being considered,... perhaps the humanization of maples is akin to the latest observations of fashions for your iPod.
and the Mountain Maples site is in Yuki Nara's links page.
The difference of before /After photographic examples are worthwhile noting.
enjoy
edzard

Edzard -

You declared that trees never heal; when I asked you if we should conclude from that that trees should never be pruned, you avoided answering because you said I was using 'rhetoric'; when I again asked the question, you said pruning was 'unavoidable because man exists' - which is even further from a straight answer; and now, you still avoid answering by going round in a circle and insisting that your own, very narrow, definition of healing is the only one that is valid.

It seems to me that nothing in these exchanges shows any valid basis for doubting the soundness of advice provided by the Mountain Maples site.

Herb

Herb, trees indeed never heal. That does not mean they shoulden't be pruned. Compartimentalization is what they do. Pruning, while understanding this process is fine. It is triggered by hormones in the tree collar and is also activated after injury weather natural ( ice storm) or man ( municipal pruner).

Using the word healing just isen't done any more in proffessional circles, just like the word feeding my tree is just not correct, as they eat sunlight not salts.

Gerald

Gerald -

I have no problem at all with what you're saying. My point is that Mountain Maples ought not to be dismissed as a source of information simply because Nancy Friers uses the word 'healing' more loosely when addressing a more popular audience.

I'm a bit surprised to learn that 'feeding' is the wrong word in relation to a tree. Pretty well all the fertilizer I see sold is in bags marked 'Plant food' of some sort.

Cheers,

Herb

Gerald,

This after thinking a bit more about your posting. I think it leads us all towards better communication.

Your second paragraph highlights an underlying difficulty that's evident in this thread from time to time - which is that in the English language, a word very often has a meaning for a particular circle of people that differs from the meaning of the word as used by English speakers in general. As you say, 'healing' is not used by people such as arborists, but quite rightly, you do not go further to assert that this makes the use of it in its wider meaning in relation to trees by the general English speaking community wrong.

I recall there was a similar dispute some time ago in this forum when it was asserted (unfortunately on the basis of an inadequate grasp of English) that a narrrow meaning of the word "Zen" adopted by a small circle actually made the use of the word in a broader sense by the majority of English speakers impermissible. (It was, as they say, a case of a tail imagining that it should wag the dog.)

Herb

Herb, I think your questions to Edzard are very appropriate, and I think you should continue pressing him about the accuracy of his claims. Capable of producing long ramblings about nothing, I suspect the man can use your help to better focus his postings hereafter.

Gerald can you site one professional 3rd party source that claims "trees never heal?" That kind of statement sounds fishy to me.

I've just done a bit more research. I still concede that some arborists avoid the word 'heal' but it's becoming clearer that the avoidance is far from universal.

Consequently, I again feel compelled to again draw attention to Edzard's dismissal of the Mountain Maples site, when he wrote -

" I must really question a site that states that trees heal."

I suggest that anybody interested should also look at (for example) these sites -

http://www.kbs.msu.edu/extension/storm/

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/3000/3045.html

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/trees-new/text/tree_damage.html

They all refer to trees 'healing" . I should have thought that they were quite prestigious enough to legitimise the usage of the word, and that as authorities in the field they rather outweighed Edzard.

Herb

It must be clear that winning an argument at all costs is not the way to encourage dialogue. When you add a pinch of nastiness or possibly envy to this mix we get essentially someone trying to discredit a person, not challenge his opinions, and we all lose. One must assume that there is a hidden agenda. That of Chris74 can be no mystery to anyone who has been following but Herbie is spoiling for a fight too, anyone know why?
When attempting to explain complicated matters to the masses it is sometimes necessary to use a vocabulary free from what may possibly be professional jargon or the words of those "in the know". Hopefully this "attempting to explain" will fall short of 'dumbing down' information. What this means in practice often is that information contained in a professional journal will be incomprehensible to Joe Bloggs. If someone in that profession attempts to explain the finer details and still Joe doesn't get it, no purpose is served when Joe turns on his would be instructor.
The pitch is really queered when a popuralizing comic is held up as an authority in opposition to more learned documentation.
I am not sure that it was generally agreed that because 'zen' is used to describe anything austere and minimalist (or has gravel in it) those who practise Zen as a way of life should think of another word to describe what they are up to.
As I said, or intended to say, winning an argument may be the antithesis of what some of us see as Japanese gardening.

Herb is being silly for the sake of goading Edzard to continue standing tall in front of us as Herb nips at his heels. I'll bet Herb will admit to this, Herb?

I think Nancy did not mean that trees litterally heal, it was just a figure of speech - as many professionals use that term loosly referring to the process of wound callousing and overgrowth by new tissues, and finally bark if we are lucky.

I think Edzard did not mean a serious malignment when he shared his opinion of misuse of the word heal.

So I hope this is taken in good light and helps move this forum back to a positive air and away from the sparring now taking place.

Trees do not heal. Damaged tissues are never repaired. Feel free to quote me.

Peace.

Herb said: "I recall there was a similar dispute some time ago in this forum when it was asserted (unfortunately on the basis of an inadequate grasp of English) that a narrrow meaning of the word "Zen" adopted by a small circle actually made the use of the word in a broader sense by the majority of English speakers impermissible."

[Mounting soapbox]

Herb, I am surprised that you seem to be defending sloppy use of the language.

This type of reasoning must be why people who are filled with anger, who judge and condemn their neighbors, who condemn abortion yet enthusiastically endorse the death penalty..... why these people get away with calling themselves "Christians." According to the "narrow meaning" of Christianity I use, i.e. what Christ believed and taught, these acts are un-Christian.

The word "Zen" has a specific and narrow meaning to me, and I choose not to use the term "Zen gardens." I accept the fact that others choose differently. But I would certainly not agree that I am being too picky, as you seem to imply. The more I have learned about the subject, the less tolerant I feel about casual use of the word.

It seems natural for specialists and professionals in any field to use some terminology not understood by the general public.

I think what Edzard meant was that when an author misuses what has become a special term in the field of arboriculture, one might question whether that person is truly a qualified professional in that field.

If you read an article in Sailing magazine where the writer refered to the left and right sides of the boat (rather than port and starboard), wouldn't that cause an alarm to go off in your head?

[Dismount from soapbox]

Lee

People are entirely free, if they want, to prefer a pedantic usage of 'heal', but the fact is that Edzard relied on it - very wrongly - as a supposed basis for denigrating the Nancy Friers article in the JOJG, and Mountain Maples along with it, and by extension, the JOJG.

I entirely agree that a truce needs to be called - but there needs to be reciprocation on the part of those who insist on continuing the vendetta against the JOJG.

Now, here's a supplementary question - is there such a tree as a hybrid of Japanese Maple and Vine Maple?

Herb

Thanx for the Yuki Nara site Edzard. This is exactly what I am looking for, Unfortunately she has no techniques posted yet. I hope she put's up some tutorials with specific problem solving techniques on the site. The photos are great and very practical but need some background and technique.

I agree with you Herb. Edzard appears to be sloppy with his "bleeding" and "healing" and "feeding" accusations against Nancy Fiers. And I notice that he never apologised for his completely false claim about the "bleeding to death" item in JOJG.

It sounds like a Japanese maple "covers up and seals" its wounds rather than healing them from within. Fine. That still sounds like healing to me. Xrays of a former broken bone (in humans) will be able to identify where the crack was. And indeed the area containing the former break might be weaker than the rest of the bone. But nearly 100% of us will say that the broken bone has healed and the person is healthy.

Look --- Patjonking --- we know you are Doug Roth. Can I state it any more clearly? We think you are abusing this forum to promote your business, the Journal of Japanese Gardening. We think you are using at least four other pseudonyms, too (the Fantastic Five, M5, whatever). Cards on the table.

Personally, I am really tired of dealing with the artificial twists that bung up these threads whenever one of the Fantastic Five makes an appearance, inevitably praising JOJG and criticizing anyone with the temerity to have a different point of view.

The biggest irony of this is that Doug and Tamao love to harp about people who "don't have the courage" to "tell the truth" about Japanese gardens. They themselves do not have the courage to appear honestly as themselves in this forum.

And Herb, I think you are just contrary. And for some reason you've decided to be a defender and apologist for the magazine, even minimizing their illegal activities. I don't know why.

It's really hard to have meaningful exchanges about Japanese gardening under these circumstances. I hope this issue resolves itself, because the forum is becoming a joke.

Lee

Lee,

You say you want to resolve this issue. The best way to do that would be to stop this vendetta, because it really is becoming tiresome & I'm afraid it will drive even more people away from the forum. Some people like the JOJG and some don't. The two sides should agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Herb

Lee,
I don't care who you think I am. And, Yes, I do like JOJG. So what?

Now, do you have something to say about Japanese maples?

I do have something to say - or at least I have a question - regarding Japanese maples. As I mentioned this morning, to me it seems like "healing" is a fine way to describe a pruning wound that seals up. What would be a better term?

There is no "vendetta" what there is is a sense that this forum is being invaded by posters who mention the JOJG in every post making it obvious that they are representatives of this magazine. Herbie is either touting for a place on the staff or has been unwittingly drawn in as their biggest fan and defender. Unfortunately Herbie is not one to concede and will battle on until he has the last word.
In the main the complaint is not about the JOJG per se rather the fact that it is being shoved up our nose at every opportunity.

Like most I think this is pointless arguement but when people feel strongly enough about their ideas/opinions/understanding of language etc then I find argueing till blue in the face understandable. I do however think that using somebodys name in a condescending way as if to try to belittle them is just childish and unnecessary. Come on boys keep it clean.

Do you mean me Graham? If so are you saying that Herbie is condescending and Inky is not?

ah, yes, LOL,..
the joys of internet, one can even access entertainment from different cities...

jeepster,... send her an email and ask, which would also help her. Shall we address maple pruning in a separate thread? or access archives? of which I thought you had those.??? I believe I saved most of them, somewhere. what questions needed answering?

what a hoo't'in'ninny,..
btw, how many of you can read?
patjonking wrote: "I agree with you Herb. Edzard appears to be sloppy with his "bleeding" and "healing" and "feeding" accusations against Nancy Fiers. And I notice that he never apologised for his completely false claim about the "bleeding to death" item in JOJG."

Now I also misinformed about feeding??? oh sorry, let me tie that bib for you...
spoon? shovel? or just the crow feathers?? i think that was Gerald, who, with thanks, corraborated some accurate information, but if it helps you focus on just one at a time... :)))))), sure.
wow, (chortling) talk about 'feeding' frenzy... ah, I see the light, I see the light...

what I wrote about the JoJG and the Fiers article,.. LOL---, do note the 'if the Fiers article appeared" -
"and if the Fiers article appeared in JoJG, then I would rather rapidly also seek other counter-balancing information. "

-- which all illustrates nicely that this thread has become something more about people than this maple thread asked for, and the Fiers link article commented upon, which is mostly for bonsai-ists and that for garden tree pruning I would suggest Yuki Nara, who, ----btw., - is also endorsed by the JoJG... and whose site also links Mountain Maples -then I can presume that this forum is for bonsai-ists rather than gardeners...?

all this supports admirably that few can read while the JoJG and I are getting great advertising out of this,... to which,.. all I can reasonably say, is thanks...

Xman,.. sorry, I hope you turned off the ' sending replies to original poster' box, and in the future I'll try not to tease lurkers out of hiding that actually know scads about maples, though rarely participate.

-in case anyone wonders, the apology to xman, in no way, shape or form applies, construes or relates to anyone else...
:) like ,,, not even a chance

amazing how some folks would like a conversation, while others ... well we're not sure what they want.
So, is the only ending to this thread, erasure? Or does every non-professional agree carte blanche with Nancy Fiers article as per the one on the MM website?

Dr. Shigo is the expert on trees click below, you can also google him for more info. His books etc. are also quite good. When hiring arborists the first question asked should be "do you know Dr. Shigo", if the answer is no, don,t hire them, unless it's a removel.

Trees (plants) eat sunlight. Fertilizer is made up of salts and is absorbed and used as building materials for infrastructure (solar collectors, transportation, structure etc). If a plant is burned, all the absorbed salts will be present in the ashes. Point being, fertilizer is not converted to sugars (food) for an authority on this I suggest any eight year old, or better, their source ' The Magic Schoolbus' honk honk

Gerald

Well, at least I agree with Edzard that this thread would be better erased, though our reasons are probably different.

If anybody wants to find out more, not only about the JOJG and about Mountain Maples, but about Edzard (look under 'Designers') much material can be found on Robert Cheetham's site - where, incidentally, there is also a forum, though they apparently outlaw acrimony and professional back-biting, and require a much higher standard of both writing and courtesy than is evident in this forum.
Click here for the Robert Cheetham site

With apologies to those who want to let this nonsense drop here is a quote from one of our members in another branch of the gw. " I concede that I don't recall ever reading Gobbledygook in the Journal of Japanese Gardening."
Gobbledeygook was previously explained as being pompous and confusing. There is no doubt that speaking plainly is to be admired but to set the JOJG up as the standard is a bit wide of the mark isn't it?

You're just trying to get that mindless, childish intifada going again - pitiful.

"intifada" ? Herb, is that more gobbledygook?

Sorry about that Inky - in future if I bother to send you a reply, I'll try to use words with fewer letters.

If you truly want a negative exchange to end, the trick is to avoid the tempation to get in the last word.