Yup... I'd like mine too please!REZDOG said:....Hey,Ed,
"Where's my copy?"
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Dopey Taylor said:
Which only shows that looks deceive, since once you've grown and smoked high quality Cannabis, you won't waste your time on B-52, IMO.
I've still got a bag of Nirvana B-52 lying around, has been for years. If I don't find anyone I can give it to, I'll probably just toss it away.
I see Ed included his very own Super Bud strain in this volume, that he is pimping for Sensi Seeds. Which means that the BBB 3 partially reads like a free publicity stunt for Ed's own business interests.
Way to go Ed.
J
JerusalemToker
I'm supposed to be mentioned in the book, but not by name. There is a review of JillyBean and it mentions that its been grown out doors for three years by someone in Israel (or so I've been told). Thats me.
Dopey Taylor does it actually say that?
JT
Dopey Taylor does it actually say that?
JT
G
Guest
Ya 1/80th of the strains are about Ed's Super Bud. The best part is Ed's own research into terpenes. I personally requested the spread on ERSB and all photos includsed, I thought ERSB carried the spirit of the book quite well.
Yes and it mentions with no nutes. Way to go it made the book!
There's a boat load of Subcool and jillybean info here for you:
http://www.weedbay.net/forums/plant-bud-shots/246-2-decades-growing-subcool.html
Chester Drawers
Member
dude, my gal is getting it for my biorthday!
theFLINTSTONERS
Member
Ed's Big Bud Books are ok . . . we feel as though they are a bit commercial . . . but heck . . . Cervantes is putting ads in his book . . .
the photo quality of Ed's Big bud books is all over the place . . . so if sweet canna bud shots are your preference . . . King's Cannabible series is far better . . .
as for providing accurate strain/grow information . . . Rosenthal's Big Book of Buds reads more like the oft hyped breeder's descriptions . . . rather than reports from independent sources . . .
but hey . . . nothing perfect . . .
the photo quality of Ed's Big bud books is all over the place . . . so if sweet canna bud shots are your preference . . . King's Cannabible series is far better . . .
as for providing accurate strain/grow information . . . Rosenthal's Big Book of Buds reads more like the oft hyped breeder's descriptions . . . rather than reports from independent sources . . .
but hey . . . nothing perfect . . .
G
Guest
They didn't come off like hype to me at all. Did you read the book or the book review?
What photos do you feel are all over the place?
What photos do you feel are all over the place?
Last edited:
anonymous said:
Just wanted to show to everyone what you sneaked into my CP (I prefer sharing with people). Next time, if you don't like what I say, just stand up like a man and say so in the thread.
But yeah, you're not a man, you're just a little weasel who doesn't even dare to sign your negative rep.
Last edited:
Well, thanks for showing your face Dopey Taylor. Dopey didn't like what I wrote so he hit the negative rep button himself:
From my CP. So now you know kids, if you don't agree with Dopey, you get an insult and some negative rep.
You know Dopey, the true meaning of a troll is someone who's more inclined on personal attacks rather than debate. So what do you think "STFU troll" classifies as?
Personally, I think insults are the sign of a somewhat limited intellect, and loosing your cool is part of it.
I'd like to hear your opinions about it. Me, I'm going to spend quality time doing an extensive alternative book review of Rosenthal's Big Book of Buds 3. I just have to figure out a way of getting a copy without paying for it.
Maybe you can send me your review copy when you're done with it, eh?
Dopey Taylor said:
From my CP. So now you know kids, if you don't agree with Dopey, you get an insult and some negative rep.
You know Dopey, the true meaning of a troll is someone who's more inclined on personal attacks rather than debate. So what do you think "STFU troll" classifies as?
Personally, I think insults are the sign of a somewhat limited intellect, and loosing your cool is part of it.
I'd like to hear your opinions about it. Me, I'm going to spend quality time doing an extensive alternative book review of Rosenthal's Big Book of Buds 3. I just have to figure out a way of getting a copy without paying for it.
Maybe you can send me your review copy when you're done with it, eh?
G
Guest
Quit pissing all over my thread, it's more than obvious you didn't even read the review. What is there to debate? You are a troll, welcome to ignore.
Oh dear, Dopey, lol... I think you made a mistake. This isn't Myspace.com, you don't actually OWN this thread. This is a web site for Cannabis cultivation. What you do around here is start a thread about a subject, and then people contribute with opinions and point of views on that subject.
You can't actually decide from start who is going to participate, or what they're going to say. The only restrictions are the web site rules, which you have to respect, so that the site doesn't get all bogged down with stupid, ignorant comments such as "you talk out your asshole" or "STFU troll".
As to the pissing, all I did was post this comment:
"Which only shows that looks deceive, since once you've grown and smoked high quality Cannabis, you won't waste your time on B-52, IMO.
I've still got a bag of Nirvana B-52 lying around, has been for years. If I don't find anyone I can give it to, I'll probably just toss it away.
I see Ed included his very own Super Bud strain in this volume, that he is pimping for Sensi Seeds. Which means that the BBB 3 partially reads like a free publicity stunt for Ed's own business interests.
Way to go Ed."
Post #22. The two other posts were replies to your trolling, which you sent 'under the table' to my CP.
Now, on to your statements.
Oh yes, I did read the review. It would be ignorant on my behalf to break into a thread and commenting on it without reading up on the thread subject.
What could be debated, and what has already been debated in other threads, is Rosenthal's business engagements.
Now, first of all, I must say I admire old Ed. He has done more for the Cannabis community than I, you and most of us have done together. Hell, he's almost a living legend. I still have one of his first growbooks in my library, and it really opened up perspectives on growing for me at the time.
Ed is still very much around, still publishing, he's got his own column in Cannabis Culture and contributes regularly with articles in various pro-Cannabis publications, he's an activist in many different organizations, spokesman for the movement, and is still thoroughly harassed by the law and the law enforcement.
With other words, he's a great guy. But what's important - at least to me - is that a guy like Ed keeps his integrity intact. He's a stand-up guy, and we all hate seeing stand-up guys being bought.
Ever heard the term conflict of interests? Let me give you the Wikipedia definition of it:
"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system."
Now Ed Rosenthal is neither a lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, executive or director of a corporation, or a medical research scientist or physician. But he is a highly respected person in the Cannabis community, and his opinions on Cannabis cultivation counts for much.
So when Ed gets questions (in his "Ask Ed" column) such as: "what are the best nutrients for growing Cannabis?", we want Ed to scoop from his vast experience in growing, and give a neutral, honest opinion on the subject.
The only thing is, Ed has signed a contract with Advanced Nutrients to promote their products. Ed has since repeatedly stated that AN nutrients grows better Cannabis than other nutrients.
If that is his honest opinion, then so be it. But once you're paid to say it, it becomes conflict of interest. It's unethical, and I don't want my hero Ed to be unethical.
The Super Bud story reads somewhat similar. Ed hooks up with Ben Dronkers from Sensi Seeds (for which I also have great respect, I've run more Sensi strains in my garden than from any other breeder), and becomes the poster boy for their new strain, the so called Ed Rosenthal Super Bud. It's evident that he's being paid for it, a smart guy like Ed would let Sensi Seeds use his image like this without recompense, would he?
Then, Ed publishes "The Big Book of Buds", which kind of reads like soft porn for bud lovers, but also gives growers an idea what strains are worth growing (buying) or not, equally based on Ed's vast experience of different types of Cannabis. The 80 strains selected are not bunk weed, they're supposed to be selected on the basis of quality, and the selection is supposed to be Ed's unbiased opinion.
Let me quote you on that one Dopey:
"There’s a danger with a book project like this that it could turn out to be all hype, but to Ed’s credit it’s not the case here. Here you get the feeling like you are included in each breeder’s close circle of friends and you are handed over the experience gained only by growing the selected strain over and over. Every nuance and aspect of growing each strain is handed over in an informative and enticing nature that makes you Jones to grow each one at least once."
The thing is, Ed included the ERSB among the 80, WHICH HE IS BEING PAID TO PROMOTE.
Which means conflict of interest, once again unethical behaviour from old Ed.
Now, I understand and accept that the Cannabiz industry needs to generate money to stay alive, and that making money doesn't have to be something ugly. But it has to be fair, square and honest.
I also know that Ed has a number of law suits hanging over him, and that good lawyers don't come cheap. But it STILL has to be fair, square and honest, otherwise Ed ruins his own reputation.
We don't want Cannabis competitions such as the IC 420 Cup or the HT Cannabis Cup to be rigged by commercial interest, we want the best strain to win a cup based un unbiased opinions, right? So if we don't accept that type of behaviour there, we shouldn't accept it elsewhere either.
That - to me - is a valid issue of debate. It has nothing to do with trolling.
Too bad you won't be contributing to the debate Dopey, since you've put me on ignore.
You can't actually decide from start who is going to participate, or what they're going to say. The only restrictions are the web site rules, which you have to respect, so that the site doesn't get all bogged down with stupid, ignorant comments such as "you talk out your asshole" or "STFU troll".
Dopey Taylor said:
As to the pissing, all I did was post this comment:
"Which only shows that looks deceive, since once you've grown and smoked high quality Cannabis, you won't waste your time on B-52, IMO.
I've still got a bag of Nirvana B-52 lying around, has been for years. If I don't find anyone I can give it to, I'll probably just toss it away.
I see Ed included his very own Super Bud strain in this volume, that he is pimping for Sensi Seeds. Which means that the BBB 3 partially reads like a free publicity stunt for Ed's own business interests.
Way to go Ed."
Post #22. The two other posts were replies to your trolling, which you sent 'under the table' to my CP.
Now, on to your statements.
Dopey Taylor said:
Oh yes, I did read the review. It would be ignorant on my behalf to break into a thread and commenting on it without reading up on the thread subject.
What could be debated, and what has already been debated in other threads, is Rosenthal's business engagements.
Now, first of all, I must say I admire old Ed. He has done more for the Cannabis community than I, you and most of us have done together. Hell, he's almost a living legend. I still have one of his first growbooks in my library, and it really opened up perspectives on growing for me at the time.
Ed is still very much around, still publishing, he's got his own column in Cannabis Culture and contributes regularly with articles in various pro-Cannabis publications, he's an activist in many different organizations, spokesman for the movement, and is still thoroughly harassed by the law and the law enforcement.
With other words, he's a great guy. But what's important - at least to me - is that a guy like Ed keeps his integrity intact. He's a stand-up guy, and we all hate seeing stand-up guys being bought.
Ever heard the term conflict of interests? Let me give you the Wikipedia definition of it:
"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system."
Now Ed Rosenthal is neither a lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, executive or director of a corporation, or a medical research scientist or physician. But he is a highly respected person in the Cannabis community, and his opinions on Cannabis cultivation counts for much.
So when Ed gets questions (in his "Ask Ed" column) such as: "what are the best nutrients for growing Cannabis?", we want Ed to scoop from his vast experience in growing, and give a neutral, honest opinion on the subject.
The only thing is, Ed has signed a contract with Advanced Nutrients to promote their products. Ed has since repeatedly stated that AN nutrients grows better Cannabis than other nutrients.
If that is his honest opinion, then so be it. But once you're paid to say it, it becomes conflict of interest. It's unethical, and I don't want my hero Ed to be unethical.
The Super Bud story reads somewhat similar. Ed hooks up with Ben Dronkers from Sensi Seeds (for which I also have great respect, I've run more Sensi strains in my garden than from any other breeder), and becomes the poster boy for their new strain, the so called Ed Rosenthal Super Bud. It's evident that he's being paid for it, a smart guy like Ed would let Sensi Seeds use his image like this without recompense, would he?
Then, Ed publishes "The Big Book of Buds", which kind of reads like soft porn for bud lovers, but also gives growers an idea what strains are worth growing (buying) or not, equally based on Ed's vast experience of different types of Cannabis. The 80 strains selected are not bunk weed, they're supposed to be selected on the basis of quality, and the selection is supposed to be Ed's unbiased opinion.
Let me quote you on that one Dopey:
"There’s a danger with a book project like this that it could turn out to be all hype, but to Ed’s credit it’s not the case here. Here you get the feeling like you are included in each breeder’s close circle of friends and you are handed over the experience gained only by growing the selected strain over and over. Every nuance and aspect of growing each strain is handed over in an informative and enticing nature that makes you Jones to grow each one at least once."
The thing is, Ed included the ERSB among the 80, WHICH HE IS BEING PAID TO PROMOTE.
Which means conflict of interest, once again unethical behaviour from old Ed.
Now, I understand and accept that the Cannabiz industry needs to generate money to stay alive, and that making money doesn't have to be something ugly. But it has to be fair, square and honest.
I also know that Ed has a number of law suits hanging over him, and that good lawyers don't come cheap. But it STILL has to be fair, square and honest, otherwise Ed ruins his own reputation.
We don't want Cannabis competitions such as the IC 420 Cup or the HT Cannabis Cup to be rigged by commercial interest, we want the best strain to win a cup based un unbiased opinions, right? So if we don't accept that type of behaviour there, we shouldn't accept it elsewhere either.
That - to me - is a valid issue of debate. It has nothing to do with trolling.
Too bad you won't be contributing to the debate Dopey, since you've put me on ignore.
Last edited:
G
Guest
STFU TROLL
