Joanie

Walter, I'm sorry that you are disappointed. It isn't a witch hunt, however. The original posts that expressed concern about the tree in the article were posted at AoB, and nothing would have been said here if they had been dealt with on that forum. John (Vonsgardens) only wrote what he did here, because the comments had been deleted there. He felt that the facts needed to be said, and AoB was not going to let it happen.

Nothing said here so far has invalidated the FACTS. If 'everyone knows the trees' then why bother taking steps to make them anonymous? Why not just let everyone enter and display their name prominently?

Using the two trees that were currently in an ongoing contest, in which the trees were intentionally supposed to be kept anonymous, was a bad move. That's all we've said. Were those the ONLY two trees that could be used? Couldn't two other trees with acknowledged pedigrees be found?

Yes, we'll let this one fade away, but people need to understand that no matter how the truth is twisted and dodged, two facts remain. The trees were supposed to be anonymous, and they were used in an article citing the names of the owners and artists by someone involved in the contest. That's it. End of subject.

Joanie

__________________