Its more of comment than a question.

That’s what a community is for. Everyone starts somewhere, and mistakes are part of the process. Nobody gets everything right from the beginning, and that’s completely fine. Personally, I actually enjoy seeing people grow, not just their plants but their knowledge too. Watching someone learn, improve, and get better with each run is a big part of what makes this whole thing so rewarding. At the end of the day, it’s about having fun with the grow and enjoying the journey. That’s what really matters.🙏

If you haven't got something nice to say, don't say it at all................ Direct, personal attacks on differences of opinion is pathetic.

My dear binary garden dwarf …. If you think stirring during 8 hours is insane, it means a lot …. It just takes a full day with a best mate to do it…

Site is full of trolls and people that always think they know best mate. Answering questions is never going to be 100% correct due to diagnosing through pictures and limited information, I feel some people see an answer that may be wrong and then go ape shit about it, even if it's the correct diagnosis and there's is wrong. Some people can't handle being wrong and it sends them into a rage.

Okay.. There's at least 5 overly wrong things in what you said, but I won't call you a clown. It's the definition of ignorant, though. Bwaha, to be so confident while you say these things is definitely more entertaining than a clown could ever be. FFS, you could have just looked this stuff up and realized what I said was not wrong. You asked for this... First erroneous statement, In this context water is not a solvent for hydrophobic molecules (trichomes in this case) - oils, fats, proteints etc. Doesn't matter if people call it 'universal' or not, because it matters how it is being used in this context of ice-water hash production. It's used specifically because it will not dissolve trichomes. Ice-water hash is a solventless process. i.e. no solvents are used in a sieve. All verifiable with a cursory search of key terms. p.s. everything you said in that answer to my question was irrelevant to the only question asked. You gave me your opinion on whether or not to use the machine and two false statement about ice. If i did 3-4 batches by hand, i'd be stirring for 8-12 hours. That would be insane. Even the off-topic answer wasn't rational or useful and more about your unrelated personal preferences. Second erroneous statement, You said "ice" is a solvent in the original answer. Ice is a solid. Solids are not solvents. Verify with the definition of "solvent." Not that ice-water hash involves solvents. As stated before, it is a solventless process. Third erroneous statement, Ice does not provide friction or agitation in making ice-water hash. It does not improve yields. Ice is there solely to maintain cold temperature to make the trichomes brittle. The friction of the water flowing through is what knocks off the trchomes. Cold temperature prevent the trichome heads from breaking open - which does not require ice, specifically. If ice pulverizes the plant material, you will get green, shitty hash. Watch a Frenchy vid. Since he is not an orignal source, i'll include a second link that also explains it properly -- https://thepressclub.co/blogs/tips-tricks/washing-hash-ice-vs-iceless-water-extraction. Most people view Frenchy as a 'master hashishian' or whatever the fuck he called himself, lol. Calling me wrong is calling frenchy wrong. There are a multitude of sources that can be found to verify this info. Fourth misunderstanding, PPFD is not a single point measurement. Its the average ppe/ppf per m^2, by definition. You are using or interpreting it incorrectly and therefore confused by the things I say that are actually correct regarding PPFD/DLI, which will be explained further correcting your fifth erroneous statement in regard to measuring light provided to a plant. Fifth erroneous statement, When a light produces 200umol/s PAR (aka PPF/PPE) and is focused on an area less than 1m^2, the PPFD is larger than the PPE/PPF output of the light. For 200umol/s to equate to 900PPFD, you would need to focus the light on an area the size of 200/900 or .22m^2. Solve for X, bud. It's basic algebra. Then, you'd reference this 900 PPFD with hours of operation to find DLI on a handy DLI reference table, or calculate it manually - whatever floats your boat. Since solving for X is a problem, you should reference a DLI table. DLI is an apples to apples comparison of light provided to the plant. That way you can compare levels of light regardless of size of garden or hours of operation. 35 DLI over 12h (flower) is the same energy provided as 35DLI over 18h (autos / vege), or whether it's an 10,000 m^2 or a 2'x2' tent. The same yield per ft^2 or m^2, dealer's choice, can be expected, give or take an insignificant amount. *Maybe, one duration is technically more optimal than others for the plant to process, but there's been reputable reaserch on this and DLI definitely is the determining factor not hours of operation. Greater number of strains etc need to be tested to know the exact differences, if any, but they are small an insignificant especially relative to a home grower scale. Source for the 4th/5th error - You should be able to extrapolate all of this from the information provided by the wiki for DLI. There are hundreds of sources to verify how all this jives together and proper definitions of PPF/PPE, PPFD, and DLI. You could look up how to calculate DLI, too. Seeing that is is merely a cumulative total of photons per s per m^2 might help. Reading up on Avogardo's number will help you understand what a "mole" is. There are various sources to verify that dli over 12 or 18 h won't make a difference in yield, or little to none. I'm not wasting any more time on this. It exists. You can find it if you wish. Energy is a currenct of sorts, so if the plant gets a 100 dollars in 12 hrs or 18hrs it's still spending 100 dollars on growth. It should be common sense. Bwaha, everything you accused me of not knowing or being wrong about turns out to be correct and accurate. I don't expect you to accept any of this. I'm sure you'll have some excuse or denial for all of it, but anyone reading will know. They can verfiy it all. They don't have to take my word for it. Like my answers to grow questions, i make a real effort not to repeat anecdotal nonsense. All of that and i never directly called you a clown... maybe a couple backhanded comments in there. Once someone is rude to me i'm not too worried about taking the high road, but i tried my best. I also tried to use as few of words as possible to communicate the essence of each error or false claim about what i said. When explaining things, sometimes it takes more than a typical social media post. I can't believe people think a handful of paragraphs is too much. Anything worth explaining takes at least a few paragraphs. i read 100s of pages per day on average and that isnt even leisure, i.e. novels. This is nothing. This is a less than 1 minute read, ffs.

For exemple, guys writing more than 300 words but don’t understand that water is a universal solvent, and ice is used to freeze the trichomes caps when making bubble hash. That same guy 🤡 who’s telling people their light can only only pull out 200 umol/s max using silly maths when the official manufacturer PPFD map shows more than 900 umol/s at 14”. That guy explaining what macro/micronutrients pathologies it is when it’s only a question of too much light, or overwatering, or overfeeding… When that same guy 🤡 grows dwarf plants with buds about the size of a testicle using many thousands watts to only harvest the half of a yield under this wattage…. That guy is my favorite one, he makes my day of laughing 🤣😂🤣😂

Hello. Yes, I've noticed the same thing... But how do you stop it... if everyone is anonymous. And some people just like the feeling they get... and some just need to fight to feel... and some just think they are smarter/superior. And don't forget about the global mental health. It's not particularly good, now. Lots of unrest... Globally ... and this is and international site. Yes... I don't know the answer either... But good for you for speaking up... That might slow some of them down... for a while.

PEOPLE HAVE VERY VERY BIG SHOVELS ON DIS SITE!!!! DIG DIG DIG AT ME FOR MY CAPS BEING ON!!!!! I PRAY FOR DEM ALL🙏!!!!!!!!

Yeah, last week I saw someone call ice a solvent and confidently misstate the function of ice in a solventless sieving process of making ice-hash. To point it out is not a 'dig' at someone but a correction of false statements that anyone can look up and verify with a cursory search on the web. It wasn't worth the confrontation, but how many people were misled by that bad information by not saying something? Plenty of people that think of themselves as 'master growers' can't seem to reference a leaf symptom chart. They don't typically understand that hours of operation without rate of photons of PAR applied is mostly useless information. Or, that 90% of people don't understand that calcium and magnesium are 2 different elements of nutrtion and ther's no such things as a 'cal-mag' deficiency, lol. They can't even differntiate the symptoms when they call it cal-mag and it's only 1 or the other seen. Even rare when someoneknow that mg-deficiencies take 30-35 days to display visible symptoms after the point at which it becomes phsyically deficient inside the plant... These are the common failings of relying 100% on anecdote and being insecure about anything that arises from scientfic research. Which is hilarious because one requires rigorous, systematic and repeated testing and one just requires popularity. Gee, i wonder which one proves to be right more often? Even the so-called 'true master growers' make mistakes, whoever they are based on any one person's arbitrary and often misguided feelings on the subject. Or, maybe everyone here is just a recreational grower, and everyone has gaps in their knowledge and experience. Very possibly, the anecdotes they believe in are not true while looking down on others for not having the same faith. And, let's be honets. It's not a difficult skill to learn how to grow healthy plants and allow them to reach their genetic potential. It's incredibly easy and anyonen struggling is probably listening far too much to 'bro science' that is overly unrelated to causality. The real assholes are the ones sending a bunch of belligerent DMs or go to your profile page and act like a cunt in the comment section, which is a common behaviour of 'oldskoolkool.' You can see in his activity log he initiates the confrontations outside of grow questions/answers. LOL, hypocrite. Guilty of the very thing he is complaining about, here. I'll be rude when it is obvious the whole point of the communication is to retaliate and antagonize. Oldskoolkool didn't reach out to me to have a conversation, In his own words, he only intended to 'dig' and "pull me down." Bwahah. I've reacted to such people, but i rarely instigate this shit. i'm fine stating an alternative answer and then walking away from it. Calling out defoliation as bro sceince or flushing before harveset is not a personal attack. You may have a different opinion, but the fact that the original reasons often given to support such 'methods' don't hold up to scritiny is not a personal attack. "Oh, it doesn't change the mineral content of flower, therefore it doesn't 'flush' out minerals from flowers?" -- Well, I either have to admit i am wrong, or i can make up new, more imaginative reaosns never given before to justify the behaviour... and, a large portion of people choose option #2, LOL. Absurd behaviour by definition of "absurd"... And again, "look at my buds" is not evidence that these techniques work. No comparison to a control group, wild variances in environemnt, and a sample size with a 5% confidence interval, lol.... Throwing a tantrum about it doesn't change the fact that it's very poor evidence. Not understanding why it is poor evidence is part of the problem too -- related to the anti-intellectual / anti-science stuff mentioned above. Simple solution... state your opinion. if someone contradicts you, try to state a meaninful response in the answers, if you want to. don't pester people in dms or throw a tantrum about a different solution being proposed. Then, move on. It doesn't fucking matter whose answer is selected. you my feel confident about your beliefs, but everyone has false beliefs.

Bro…. I have seen so many irrational answers since nearly 10 years on GrowDiaries …. When it happens I just look at the grower profile to check his crops and buds size …. This is the only thing that says a lot about someone on this website…. There’s only 5% of true skilled Masters Growers here, all others are just recreational growers with their basics knowledge and beliefs…

You dig at the lads giving answer (helping}. Answers can't be correct all the time given info and lack of experience with said grow in question. People who ask a question and are expecting miracle answer that are always correct and act on such thing without doing recearch t's more of an opinion threw knowledge learnt and the rest that follows is advice and knowledge of how to fix, when to fix and how much to fix it with might be slightly wrong.. People have answers from experience, some from books and learning some from there 1st and only grow but does that matter. If someone if helping they should t be put down by the like of you..agree with @ATLien415 100%.i have been seeing you sticking your neck out at every opportunity to put the lads down and that my friend says alot about you..

some people like to really stick to their 'experience' even when confronted with categorical and objective fact that speaks volumes more than said 'experience' ... some people regularly aim down relative to site ranking or prevalence when doing so, in essence only aiming said comments at newer accounts hope this is advice you plan on rolling one up and thinking about as well, for example my experience with your handle has been that you have some old outdoor anecdotes and way too much time on your hand to not being doing continuous learning; we acutely had two disagreements which summarizes this up rather well IMO 1. you were essentially on a comment spree telling folks to place ozone generating UV-C devices into their residential homes, with placement such as 'always on' in a 'hallway' ; did everything short of sharing my legitimate physics credentials with you on that one 2. smells during grows, you see this as a fact of life that cannot be adjusted or changed in any manner; I pointed to the slew of research showing that secondary metabolites are indeed contained within trichomes, ergo increasing trichome integrity means decreasing volatiles lost through......broken trichomes ....aka smell that you get; anyone with a cannatrol knows this for fact past the whitepapers i generally let you go off these days, only coming in when you do #1 again and I happen to see it. we have enough cancer in our society without telling new growers to slap a ozone generator in their hallway.