[Patrick_Mucci]

"Jon,

I doubt you'll find an outfall pipe for irrigation deeper than 20 feet.

I can't think of any, can you ?"

So as our local expert, please explain to the forum...in precise detail...exactly what the hell an "outfall pipe" is.

If you don't know, it speaks to your limited knowledge.
Hint it has to do with "source"

And please explain to the discussion group how it is that you have come to the conclusion that you will not find one of these deeper than 20 feet.

Sure, but first, in order to understand my response you have to have a semblance of reading comprehension skills, something you lack.
If you'll look carefully at the title of this thread, it's about "PONDS", not lakes or wells.
Second, I never said that you will not find a pipe deeper than 20 feet, I said: " I DOUBT you'll find one deeper than 20 feet.
So rather than either lie and/or twist the facts, which is what you erroneously accused me of, try reading what's typed rather than what you substitute for my written words

And again...in precise detail...why exactly you WON'T find them deeper than 20 in any situation around the world.
Because of the very definition of a pond you moron

Enlighten us with your expertise and support your horribly informed generalizations and accusations.

You're a joke......... In addition to being a moron.
Have you ever bothered to read the definition of a "pond" ?
Have you ever bothered to read the definition of "callous" ?
Have you ever bothered to read Jon's reference to "root zone" without claiming he meant "canopy" ?
Have you ever bothered to read anything with any degree of comprehension ?
Based on your misrepresentation of my written words, I doubt it.
You're a putz.


And no BS Mucci diversions, just answer the questions.

There's not an iota of BS in my responses.
As to answering questions, it's time for you to answer all of mine.
You may recall that you previously stated that you refused to do so.
And, I stated that that was because you knew the answers wouldn't bode well for you.

You're a joke

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

I would just let the whole thing go. Patrick is just one sad little man. I doubt he will ever tell you about his vast experience in golf construction as he is just too modest so you will need to help him out by asking if anyone else could name projects he has worked on.

I NEVER stated that I had "vast" experience.

That's your pathetic and dishonest misrepresentation of what I've stated

That doesn't surprise me as you since you couldn't bring yourself to understand the concepts of subtraction and deductive reasoning.

So, I'll ask you again.
If water at a temperature of 86F degrees, cools the root zone, does that mean the root zone was:

1.  Lower than 86F
2.  86F
3.  Higher than 86F

Take your time.   Consult as many people as you want.
 

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY GOLF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PATRICK HAS BEEN INVOVLED IN?



You're so obtuse that it's comical, one of the answers is staring you in the face.
But what can anyone expect from someone incapable of the simplest exercise in subtraction.

What neither you nor that moron Ian can grasp is that maybe, just maybe, someone who's reasonably intelligent, is capable of understanding things that you deem restricted to your ilk.   

[Ian Larson]

I just had a meeting with the architect and irrigation contractor on the project I'm on and as we were finished up and chatting I threw the question out there. What do you call the call the pipe that brings in the water to the pump into the irrigation system? They looked at me weird, then said "The intake pipe?". Have you ever referred to it as an "outfall pipe?". ? What's falling out of it? Water is being sucked in, not falling out.

So get your nomenclature right Patrick as I already had to teach you the word canopy. You would think that someone who was in charge of all these projects and push people around with your "experience" you would at least know the basic nomenclature for what you're talking about. But you don't. You're an insecure person with a narcissistic personality and put people down who question you. I showed this thread to my psychologist girlfriend and the first thing she asked was how old are you? Because you act like a child. Like Spalding. I told her that you were at least in the golf commercial demographic for erectile dysfunction medication. Very sad.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I just had a meeting with the architect and irrigation contractor on the project I'm on and as we were finished up and chatting I threw the question out there. What do you call the call the pipe that brings in the water to the pump into the irrigation system? They looked at me weird, then said "The intake pipe?". Have you ever referred to it as an "outfall pipe?". ? What's falling out of it? Water is being sucked in, not falling out.

That's because of the way you phrased the question.
Obviously you don't know the difference between "destination" and "source"

So get your nomenclature right Patrick as I already had to teach you the word canopy.

Dream on

You would think that someone who was in charge of all these projects and push people around with your "experience" you would at least know the basic nomenclature for what you're talking about. But you don't.

I know the difference, you're just not familiar with the English language, the difference between "source" and "destination", especially in the context of function.   Ask your question as follows:   What would you call a pipe that empties water from a pond ?
See if you get the same answer.
Now do you understand the difference between "source" and "destination" in the context of function ?  

You're an insecure person with a narcissistic personality and put people down who question you.

To the contrary, it was YOU who initiated he nasty personal attacks after you were proven wrong regarding Jon's use of he word "root zone"
You couldn't stand that you were proven wrong on a specific issue and launched your personal attacks.
So don't try to feed us the crap that you're a victim.  YOU were the perpetrator.

I showed this thread to my psychologist girlfriend and the first thing she asked was how old are you? Because you act like a child. Like Spalding. I told her that you were at least in the golf commercial demographic for erectile dysfunction medication. Very sad.

That's funny, wasn't your mommy available ?
Did you meet her because you were her patient ?
In your pathetic attempt to have others mend your bloody nose, you've now shown this thread to an architect, contractor and your girlfriend.
As if your girlfriend is going to say to you:
"Moron, don't you know that when someone types the word "root zone" over and over and over again, they mean "root zone ?"
"Patrick was right and you were wrong.
Get over it."

 

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian,



DOES ANYONE KNOW OF ANY GOLF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PATRICK HAS BEEN INVOVLED IN?

Jon

Renovation of Boca Rio Golf Club early 1990s.

Thanks Kelly, so the count stands at one!

Jon

[Ian Larson]

It's called an intake pipe Patrick, not an outflow. You're wrong. It's called the canopy, not the leaf zone. Canopies exist outside of the rainforest. Any moron knows that. So wrong again. And these days you are one of the main reasons people call this discussion group dickhead.com. Boca Rio should immortalize you in the clubhouse for being in charge of 1 project that you've got under your belt. I bet you took charge like a chief!

[Ian Larson]

I bet you took charge like a chief!

He was probably one of the best, most involved green chairman with whom I have worked. Seemed like every morning there would be pages of notes, questions, comment, etc. waiting for me on the fax machine, typically sent out at midnight or 1 AM. You can tell from this thread he doesn't sit quietly in the corner.

 I think Boca Rio owes him a tremendous amount of gratitude.

Still doesn't excuse his behavior with people on here going into his attack mode when someone has experienced something beyond the experience he had with one project as a greens chair.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I have no doubt Patrick was an involved and informed greens chair.  Your comments remind me of a nice corrollary topic - whether clubs really appreciate their greens chairs who undertake to implement such a project.

In reality, it probably needs to be a Patrick type personality, and you take both the good and the bad to get a project done well!  I am told he is much nicer in person than his internet personna projects, though.

Ditto with supers. I see far too many get fired after renovations, for vague reasons, like it doesn't come in fast enough (even if it was planted late) etc.  And, some clubs change gca's as often as we change underwear, and thats not a comment on our personal hygiene!

[Jon Wiggett]

Kelly,

I am sure you are correct but if Patrick behaved with you as he does on this forum then I suspect your opinion would be completely different. I know it is easy to read comments the wrong way but Patrick seems to go out of his way to provoke, annoy and generally be very unpleasant with many people on here.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

I bet you took charge like a chief!

He was probably one of the best, most involved green chairman with whom I have worked. Seemed like every morning there would be pages of notes, questions, comment, etc. waiting for me on the fax machine, typically sent out at midnight or 1 AM. You can tell from this thread he doesn't sit quietly in the corner.

 I think Boca Rio owes him a tremendous amount of gratitude.

Still doesn't excuse his behavior with people on here going into his attack mode when someone has experienced something beyond the experience he had with one project as a greens chair.

Ian,

You're beyond a joke and you are a liar

YOU were the one who initiated the nasty, attack mode  comments, not me

YOU are the moron

And, would you cite for us, anywhere where it's indicated that Boca Rio was the only project I've been involved with?
That's your erroneous conclusion.

I don't see how anyone could assign any degree of credibility to anything you say.

You keep drawing erroneous inclusions  absent facts and prudent reason.

If I was your employer I'd review your work product.

[Ian Larson]

"I talked about rootzone temp not turf. Duhh"

"Duhh ?    You moron, they're the same thing !"

....since when have root zone temperatures ever been the same as canopy temperatures?

Ian,

Do you equate the definition of the two words,  "canopy" and "turf" ?

Or are you referencing a course you're familiar with in one of the rain forests ?

Patrick,

If you don't understand that turf has a canopy where it's environment is completely different than the environment of a root zone then you might want to go back and study Turf 101 and actually pass it.

Ian, before that happens, perhaps you should take a refresher course in the English language.

You might want to reference "Webster's Dictionary" or the "Oxford Dictionary" or the "Collins English Dictionary"  or the "American Heritage Dictionary" or

Your interpretation of the word "canopy" is counter to that of the English speaking world.

Perhaps you don't understand nomenclature.

Now, if you're talking about the "leaf zone", that's a seperate area from the turf or root zone.



Temperatures and moisture in the turf canopy differ greatly than in the root zone.

"Canopy" is the wrong term, leaf area/zone would be a more accurate word/term.

With a root zone temperature of 86 degrees F, would the leaf area/zone be:

1.     Cooler
2      The same
3      Hotter

Take your time on this.

And, since the root zone depth can vary, if the root zone temperature was at 86 degrees F, what would the differential in temperature be at the leaf zone/area when the depth differential is:

1     2 inches
2     4 inches
3     6 inches
4     8 inches

Assume a Northeastern location.  Say, Bethpage, NY,



It's not the same thing.

NO ONE, repeat, NO ONE, said that the rootzone/turf is the same thing as the leaf zone/area.
You're the only one making that moronic statement.

You're wrong and prove that more and more with each post you make.

Each post I made proved Jon wrong, with facts, not bluster.

Your declaration that I'm wrong is hollow.
Tell me, with detailed specificity, what am I wrong about ?

Jon didn't even know that the root zone and turf are the same basic area, except that turf, includes the grass.
Now, you're trying to equate the grass with the root  zone.  And you claim that I'm wrong ?
You're a seriously confused man.

Still want to go at it don't you Mucci? Maybe you also suffer from amnesia. There was this fantastic post where you wanted to start getting nasty with me. And this was after you already starting with Jon. I entered the conversation by asking since when are root zone temps the same as canopy temps? You then went on your mission to tell me canopy is not the right word and its leaf zone and that it's all the same thing. Which you were wrong about. You are the one on this site that will get nasty and call people names when challenged or disagreed with. Why? Because you're an insecure baby that thinks he knows everything and bullies people around to make up for your insecure lack of knowledge by going over the top. And I won't cite anything about your experience because its unknown and you have yet to cite all of your experience yourself. Which you don't really have to. Your lack of experience comes across in your statements loud and clear. The real joke is that you think being a greens chair or committee member makes you more knowledgable or experienced than people who do this for a career everyday of their lives. That's the real joke going on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly,

Thanks.

One only has to read Ian's initial replies to see who set the tone for the discussion.

Ian's subsequent posts continue with his nasty personalized attacks, which amused me.
He's like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant by drawing conclusions based on limited information.
One, feeling the ear, declares that it's a huge leaf.
Another, feeling the tusk, declares that it's an elongated mollusk.
The other, feeling the trunk, declares it to be a large serpent.
Individually and collectively, like Ian, they don't have a clue.

Ian throws out bold personal statements only to have each and every one refuted.

As to his comments, I merely responded, sometimes in kind.

What's really funny is that Ian insisted that the "root zone" was the "canopy"
He was the one who erroneously substituted the "canopy" for the "root zone" , when Jon was crystal clear that he meant "root zone"
Ian's entire premise is based upon his erroneous  conclusion that Jon is a moron and doesn't understand the difference between "root zone" and "canopy".  An erroneous conclusion that will cause Jon to subsequently restate that he meant "root zone" not "canopy" when he typed "root zone" over and over and over again.

But, desperate men do desperate things, so Ian in his desperate attempt to be right for just once, disingenuously substituted "canopy" for "root zone"

It would be akin to discussing the "Yankees" record over the last 10 years and then having Ian erroneously substitute the "Mets" for the "Yankees"

One would have to be deliberately disingenuous to engage in such a nefarious attempt to win an argument, but, that's Ian for you.
He accused me of "twisting the facts", when he, in fact, was the culprit.

Ian went on a mission, based on his erroneous substitution of the two areas, the "root zone" and the "canopy".
His sole intention was to try to prove me wrong.
Now you have to understand this from an historical perspective.
He's tried this before, without any success.
So, he's a frustrated child when he enters the fray.

Jon refuses to answer a question that anyone with half a brain knows the answer to.

The answer is that the "root zone" is hotter than the water at 86 F that is applied to it and cools it down.

Why is this important ?

Thanks to Ian, he posted an article written by what he claimed were "experts".
In that article, it stated,

"Cool-season turfgrasses generally perform best when soil temperatures are between 60 and 75°F.
When soil temperatures reach 80°F or more, root and shoot growth is severely restricted
and at 86°F or above root death begins."

Now, if the water from your intake/outfall pipe is 86F and your intake/outfall pipe is at 20 feet or deeper, and Ian claims it's much deeper, which unwittingly furthers my point, and you understand temperatures related to depth, a prudent person could conclude that surface/soil temperatures were well beyond 86F, and probably at or in excess of 100F.

If soil/root zone temperatures were at or above 100, what do Ian's experts say about the health of the roots ? ?

They say that the roots would be dead.

So, why would you water them at that point ?

Hope that helps

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I talked about rootzone temp not turf. Duhh"

"Duhh ?    You moron, they're the same thing !"

....since when have root zone temperatures ever been the same as canopy temperatures?

Ian,

Since you're incapable of telling the truth, here's your post where YOU and YOU ALONE, inserted and substituted "canopy" for "root zone"

[Ian Larson]

"I talked about rootzone temp not turf. Duhh"

"Duhh ?    You moron, they're the same thing !"

....since when have root zone temperatures ever been the same as canopy temperatures?

Ian,

Since you're incapable of telling the truth, here's your post where YOU and YOU ALONE, inserted and substituted "canopy" for "root zone"

Mucci, if someone says they're talking about rootzone temp not the turf....what is he referring to when he says turf? The roots or the grass? I'll give you a minute on that one.

Then you jump in calling him a moron. And state that they are the same. When someone is making a distinguish meant between roots and turf they're not meaning the same thing. They are referring to the foliage on top when referring to the turf. Shall I draw you a picture?

The foliage and its seperate environment is called the canopy. That area is not the same area as the roots. It's completely different. So for guys like you who have difficulties with deduction and reasoning and rely on Websters and Wikipedia to get the definition of turf...and see that the definition includes it all...you give yourself a really stupid base for an argument and look silly.

If you want to go into detail and prove me right then put down the Websters and replace it with a Turf Science book. Read it, and then try to tell me that canopy is the wrong word and that there are no separate parts to turf. It's all one big same thing top to bottom. Do your homework, take more notes and get back to me.

And thanks for quoting yourself starting to try and degrade Jon by calling him a moron, not a personal attack at all huh Mucci?

[Patrick_Mucci]

And not only does every person with a basic turf knowledge know that there is a canopy...

called a canopy and NOT the "leaf zone", so do the experts...

Are you an Agronomist ?

Perhaps Dr Max Brown didn't get your mandate regarding the "leaf zone"

Ditto for Bob Randquist, Mike Bailey and others.

But what does Dr Max Brown and/or superintendents know compared to you ?  

When, if ever, and without doing an Internet search or being coached,  were you aware that grasses were being DNA tested ?

[Ian Larson]

And not only does every person with a basic turf knowledge know that there is a canopy...

called a canopy and NOT the "leaf zone", so do the experts...

Are you an Agronomist ?

Perhaps Dr Max Brown didn't get your mandate regarding the "leaf zone"

Ditto for Bob Randquist, Mike Bailey and others.

But what does Dr Max Brown and/or superintendents know compared to you ?  

When, if ever, and without doing an Internet search or being coached,  were you aware that grasses were being DNA tested ?

I've at least got my turf degree and spent half my career on the maintenance side, what about you?

[Ian Larson]

...oh that's right, you were a greens chairman. We all know how grueling the prerequisites can be to become one of those.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I talked about rootzone temp not turf. Duhh"

"Duhh ?    You moron, they're the same thing !"

....since when have root zone temperatures ever been the same as canopy temperatures?

Ian,

Since you're incapable of telling the truth, here's your post where YOU and YOU ALONE, inserted and substituted "canopy" for "root zone"

Mucci, if someone says they're talking about rootzone temp not the turf....what is he referring to when he says turf? The roots or the grass? I'll give you a minute on that one.

The roots

You have heard of soil probes, haven't you.

When's the last time you saw someone taking the "grasses" temperature ?

Then you jump in calling him a moron. And state that they are the same. When someone is making a distinguish meant between roots and turf they're not meaning the same thing. They are referring to the foliage on top when referring to the turf. Shall I draw you a picture?

No they're not.  That's patently absurd.
You'd have to be a moron to draw that conclusion, a conclusion you have to draw in order to save face.
So tell us, other than knowing the air temperature, how does one go about taking the temperature of the blades of grass ?
You don't have a clue.
But we know how the temperature of the turf is taken, with a soil probe

The foliage and its seperate environment is called the canopy. That area is not the same area as the roots. It's completely different.


No kidding
Everyone on the planet knows that.
NO ONE, other than you, was talking about the "canopy" or "leaf zone"
The discussion was focused on the sub-soil, not the blades of grass.
You and you alone inserted the leaf zone into the discussion

So for guys like you who have difficulties with deduction and reasoning and rely on Websters and Wikipedia to get the definition of turf...and see that the definition includes it all...you give yourself a really stupid base for an argument and look silly.

Yeah, what do Webster's and the other 63 dictionary sources know about definitions.
You're a joke

If you want to go into detail and prove me right then put down the Websters and replace it with a Turf Science book. Read it, and then try to tell me that canopy is the wrong word and that there are no separate parts to turf.

Not only are you a moron, but you're totally confused.
I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I asked you before and I'll ask you again, are you an Agronomist ?

It's all one big same thing top to bottom. Do your homework, take more notes and get back to me.

No problem
Jon told you, in clear terms, that he wasn't talking about the "canopy/leaf zone"
Yet, you keep babbling about it.

You were wrong.
Just admit it, it shouldn't be hard to do given that it happens so often

And thanks for quoting yourself starting to try and degrade Jon by calling him a moron, not a personal attack at all huh Mucci?

No, it wasn't, you were the one who insinuated he was a moron by declaring that he meant "canopy" when he stated over and over again that he meant "root zone".  You were wrong,  he meant what he typed when he typed "root zone"

ONLY A MORON WOULD THINK HE MEANT "CANOPY" WHEN HE TYPED "ROOT ZONE A DOZEN TIMES

[Patrick_Mucci]

...oh that's right, you were a greens chairman. We all know how grueling the prerequisites can be to become one of those.
Ian,

Since you continue to take this to a personal level,  the facts are that I'm more intelligent, better educated, more experienced and more successful than you.

As to your continued references to sexual inadequacies, is that how you met your psychologist girlfriend, as a patient having a difficult time coping with his schmeckle ?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

And not only does every person with a basic turf knowledge know that there is a canopy...

called a canopy and NOT the "leaf zone", so do the experts...

Are you an Agronomist ?

Perhaps Dr Max Brown didn't get your mandate regarding the "leaf zone"

Ditto for Bob Randquist, Mike Bailey and others.

But what does Dr Max Brown and/or superintendents know compared to you ?  

When, if ever, and without doing an Internet search or being coached,  were you aware that grasses were being DNA tested ?

I've at least got my turf degree and spent half my career on the maintenance side, what about you?

You didn't answer the question.

You never do because the answers either prove you wrong or embarrasses you.

Would you consider Dr Max Brown an expert in agronomy ?

Ditto "grasses" ?

Would you also answer the question regarding DNA

[Ian Larson]

1. Jon said he was talking about the rootzone temp not the turf. You told him they are the same thing. It's not about Jon and I and me inserting canopy when he meant roots. It's about him making a distinguishment about the two and YOU saying they are the same. And YOU are wrong. They ARE NOT THE SAME. This is about YOUR statement, not Jon's. you said it's all the same and YOU ARE WRONG.

2. "You have heard of soil probes, haven't you. When's the last time you saw someone taking the "grasses" temperature ?"

You have got to be kidding me right? Soil probes take a sample of the physical core profile. A soil probe does not take temperature. A    THERMOMETER takes temperature! And superintendents and agronomists take temperatures of the CANOPY all the time! And your inexperience just proves itself in your dumb statements once again!

3. "No they're not.  That's patently absurd. You'd have to be a moron to draw that conclusion, a conclusion you have to draw in order to save face.
So tell us, other than knowing the air temperature, how does one go about taking the temperature of the blades of grass ? You don't have a clue.
But we know how the temperature of the turf is taken, with a soil probe."

You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? Here's a clue...if you take a thermometer, and place the tip right on the canopy...that will give you the temp on the surface of the canopy environment. You can also use infrared thermometers that will give you canopy temps. So go on moron...go to your local superintendent and ask him to borrow his soil probe because you'd like to go take the temperature of some turf! Then wait for the face he makes when he realizes you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

4. "No kidding. Everyone on the planet knows that. NO ONE, other than you, was talking about the "canopy" or "leaf zone"
The discussion was focused on the sub-soil, not the blades of grass. You and you alone inserted the leaf zone into the discussion."

You're not allowed to use canopy because its not correct nomenclature to you. And I'll repeat myself, again, Jon referenced rootzone versus turf. It doesn't take a moron to figure out that by "turf" he means foliage or the grass or the canopy. You said it's all the same. You were wrong. Again.

5. "Not only are you a moron, but you're totally confused. I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
I asked you before and I'll ask you again, are you an Agronomist ?"

Being an agronomist is completely irrelevant. This is basic Turf 101. You don't have to be an agronomist or a moron to understand it. And if being an agronomist is the only way to be credible then where do you stand Mr. Green Chairman? We all know how knowledgable Greens Chairmen are in agronomics don't we? They obviously don't know the difference between a soil probe and a thermometer!

6. "No, it wasn't, you were the one who insinuated he was a moron by declaring that he meant "canopy" when he stated over and over again that he meant "root zone".  You were wrong,  he meant what he typed when he typed "root zone"

ONLY A MORON WOULD THINK HE MEANT "CANOPY" WHEN HE TYPED "ROOT ZONE A DOZEN TIMES"

I haven't insinuated or called Jon anything. So go ahead and do what you do to lie and twist that I did. Please cite which post I did this. Jon referred to the "rootzone" versus "turf". You are the moron who doesn't have basic deduction skills to understand he was referring to the roots versus the grass. The grass encompassing the canopy environment. YOU ARE WRONG, BY TURF HE MEANT CANOPY. AND THE CANOPY IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ROOTS AS YOU STATE HERE.

"I talked about rootzone temp not turf. Duhh"

"Duhh ?    You moron, they're the same thing !"

 You are the moron Mucci. You are the joke. You are wrong and are not man enough to admit it because you're an insecure narcissist who overcompensates by being a bully and an asshole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

1. Jon said he was talking about the rootzone temp not the turf. You told him they are the same thing.

It's not about Jon and I and me inserting canopy when he meant roots.

Now you're two personalities ?
Who's your alter ego ?

And it is about YOU inserting canopy into the discussion.
Jon and I were both refering to the subsoil, you were refering to the leaf blade.

2. "You have heard of soil probes, haven't you. When's the last time you saw someone taking the "grasses" temperature ?"

You have got to be kidding me right? Soil probes take a sample of the physical core profile. A soil probe does not take temperature. A    THERMOMETER takes temperature! And superintendents and agronomists take temperatures of the CANOPY all the time! And your inexperience just proves itself in your dumb statements once again!

Soil "probe" isn't a one dimensional, descriptive term and can be used to describe an instrument used to measure moisture, temperature or take core samples.
Evidently you don't have a clue as to the definition of the word "probe"


3. "No they're not.  That's patently absurd. You'd have to be a moron to draw that conclusion, a conclusion you have to draw in order to save face.
So tell us, other than knowing the air temperature, how does one go about taking the temperature of the blades of grass ? You don't have a clue.
But we know how the temperature of the turf is taken, with a soil probe."

You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? Here's a clue...if you take a thermometer, and place the tip right on the canopy...that will give you the temp on the surface of the canopy environment.


That's essentially equivalent to the air temperature.


You can also use infrared thermometers that will give you canopy temps. So go on moron...go to your local superintendent and ask him to borrow his soil probe because you'd like to go take the temperature of some turf! Then wait for the face he makes when he realizes you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

If he's as obtuse as you, I could only imagine his confusion.

If I stated that I wanted to take the temperature of the root zone, would you give me your probe, he'd know what I was talking about, just as he would if I stated that I wanted to measure the moisture content in the root zone.

4. "No kidding. Everyone on the planet knows that. NO ONE, other than you, was talking about the "canopy" or "leaf zone"
The discussion was focused on the sub-soil, not the blades of grass. You and you alone inserted the leaf zone into the discussion."

You're not allowed to use canopy because its not correct nomenclature to you.

Oh, that's right, you declared that NO ONE uses the term "leaf zone".
Especially experts in the field of agronomy.
So Dr Max Brown, according to you, doesn't know what he's talking about, but you, with no degree in agronomy, you have ordained what terms the experts use.  "Leaf zone" is a fairly common term.   You're a joke

And I'll repeat myself, again, Jon referenced rootzone versus turf. It doesn't take a moron to figure out that by "turf" he means foliage or the grass or the canopy. You said it's all the same. You were wrong. Again.

We were talking about the same area, the subsoil.

We know, by definition, that turf does NOT mean "foilage or the grass or the canopy" as you insist.
We know that turf includes the entire soil profile down to and inclusive of the root zone.


5. "Not only are you a moron, but you're totally confused. I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
I asked you before and I'll ask you again, are you an Agronomist ?"

Being an agronomist is completely irrelevant.

Oh, now that you're called on your degree of expertise, and you have none, it's suddenly irrelevant.
But, it is relevant.
You told us that the experts don't refer to the "canopy" as the "leaf zone"
But, you're not an expert, you're not even an agronomist.
So, when I cite Dr Max Brown, an agronomist and a well respected expert on grasses, as calling that area a "leaf zone" it means that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're wrong once again.

This is basic Turf 101. You don't have to be an agronomist or a moron to understand it.

Well, you're 50-50,  and you're certainly not an agronomist.

The fact that I'm not an agronomist certainly puts me on an equal footing with you not being an agronomist.

And if being an agronomist is the only way to be credible then where do you stand Mr. Green Chairman?

The answer is very simple.
Unlike you, I know what I don't know, so I retained experts in the area of agronomy, like Dr Max Brown, as one of our many consultants.
I hired experts in agronomy, experts in environmental law, including the former legal counsel for the Florida DEP.
I hired engineers and experts in every field, and I met with them and communicated with them on a regular basis.
I also got a great education as a by-product of their involvement.

What you don't seem to understand, and I understand why you don't understand,
is that intelligent people are capable of learning and managing projects not necessarily confined to their field of expertise.
And that they're capable of applying that knowledge efficiently when it comes to those projects.


We all know how knowledgable Greens Chairmen are in agronomics don't we?
They obviously don't know the difference between a soil probe and a thermometer!

And you obviously need a Thesaurus in order to understand that words have more than one meaning.
Probes can be used to measure moisture, temperature and to retrieve core samples.
It's not a use limited to a singular meaning.

6. "No, it wasn't, you were the one who insinuated he was a moron by declaring that he meant "canopy" when he stated over and over again that he meant "root zone".  You were wrong,  he meant what he typed when he typed "root zone"

ONLY A MORON WOULD THINK HE MEANT "CANOPY" WHEN HE TYPED "ROOT ZONE A DOZEN TIMES"

I haven't insinuated or called Jon anything.

Of course you did.
He typed "root zone" a gazillion times, but you insisted he meant "canopy", then, after you insisted, he again stated that he meant "root zone"
He knew what he was talking about, you didn't.

So go ahead and do what you do to lie and twist that I did. Please cite which post I did this. Jon referred to the "rootzone" versus "turf". You are the moron who doesn't have basic deduction skills to understand he was referring to the roots versus the grass. The grass encompassing the canopy environment. YOU ARE WRONG, BY TURF HE MEANT CANOPY. AND THE CANOPY IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ROOTS AS YOU STATE HERE.

I never said that he meant "canopy" you did.
I was aware that he meant "root zone", the sub-soil.

"I talked about rootzone temp not turf. Duhh"

"Duhh ?    You moron, they're the same thing !"

You are the moron Mucci. You are the joke. You are wrong and are not man enough to admit it because you're an insecure narcissist who overcompensates by being a bully and an asshole.

Coming from a dolt like you I consider that a compliment.

I guess that's a whole lot better than being a moron with a schmeckle.

But, it's good to see that you're now presenting yourself as a qualified psychiatrist.

You sure have a vivid imagination when it comes to your areas of expertise.

Tell us again how "experts" don't refer to the "canopy" as the "leaf zone"
And tell us again how the word "canopy" is defined in the dictionary/ies.

You're a putz masquerading as an expert.

Would you answer the math and deductive reasoning question ?

And tell us again where you find water at 86F on an intake pipe 100 ft below the surface.

[Jon Wiggett]

Still just the one eh

Jon

[Ian Larson]

Mucci why don't you do a simple Google of turfgrass leaf zone and turfgrass canopy. Let me know how many hits you come up with leaf zone since its so widely used. Because I don't come up with a single one. But turfgrass canopy? Hits for days. Must still be the wrong word because you heard "Dr. Max Brown" say it once.

[PGertner]

I'd like to play Del Boca Vista.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()