C
Charles Xavier
- 50
- 0
Sorry to post this in your thread Elite...I ain't got PM skills yet....Trust Nobody
Uhhhh......am I mistaken in thinking that the commercially available "Charles Kush" by Reeferman (which he named after himself) is not a hybrid of the King cut & a Humboldt County Kush line that was given to him by Steve Tuck???....Trust Nobody
I'm well aware that ol' Reef is shady...not to honest a fellow much of the time...but...Charles Kush was the end of his claims not the beginning...are you saying you are Reeferman...Xavier?....Trust Nobody
A lot of what you say doesn't add up for me...Charles, did you post up some stories back at Cannabis World a few years back under a different handle? G13 ring a bell?....Trust Nobody.
Greetings Trust Nobody
I have decided that a response to your post is better framed in this forum subsection rather than in Elite Genetics' vendor forum. I hope you do not mind.
Thank you for the response Professor & I welcome the change to a more appropriate forum.
You are not incorrect, however your extrapolation is incomplete. The King is a specimen (phenotype) of the Charles' Kush (note the apostrophe denoting the possessive case). The Charles' Kush is a line created by myself.
Further research revealed that I was indeed incorrect...memory did not serve me correct on this rare occasion, it happens to the best of us.
Reeferman's 'Charles Kush' is a hybrid cross of a "choice Kush cutting with an old school IBL"
Reeferman's 'Kings Cross' is a hybrid of the The King cutting & his Charles Kush hybrid.
These are the facts according to Reeferman.
I am unaware as to exactly why Reeferman refers to his offering as Charles Kush and I do not care to speculate.
I don't believe speculation is necessary...it's public knowledge that Reeferman's real name is Charles...named after himself as previously stated.
No. There is no insinuation nor implication, intended or otherwise, to support the claim that Reeferman and myself are one and the same.
You are more than certainly entitled to your opinion, but your assertion of another's dishonesty should have no bearing on the correspondence between you and I.
This is True...^^^...&, I do not believe Reeferman & yourself are the same individual.
Firstly, I did not state "a lot" on the topic, so it's perfectly understandable if what I have committed to print doesn't "add up" to you.
Secondly, more emphasis on sound deductive reasoning and less on simple arithmetic may be of some benefit. If you had approached this subject with the surety that you may not be as schooled in the topic as you may think, then perhaps different conclusions would have presented themselves to you.
I have not come to any conclusions as of yet...curiousity leads to more questions...see below.
No. I've never used another online pseudonym. No. I was never a member of Cannabis World.
I've been referred to as 'Professor X' by my students for some considerable time, so it was quite natural to adopt my current and only online moniker.
(Also, I'm fairly confident that the accepted acquisition of G13 is more fiction than fact.)
I accept what you say on your word...your style was merely reminiscent of a fellow who went by the handle of Nom de Fleur, years back.
To make this post somewhat relevant to the sub-forum's designation: The Charles' Kush is a poly-line bred cross of Nuristani genectics.
Sincerely,
Charles.
it hard to keep things friendly when folks just lie and attack your word !Keep things friendly farmers! dont want to have to ban anyone
Thats not a bad idea at all its just tough to organize that type of data .I hear you Reef, and I'm a novice to the community, but it seems that there needs to be a repository for breeders reports/notes/comments.....something more than forum posts collected by the industrious amongst us. This repository would be a database of all posts made by the original breeders for retrospective stuff, and for reports going forwards....a bit like the GrowFAQ, only specifically for breeders.
It means there would always be a central place that held 'the truth' according to the breeder, that could be referred to by anyone (but only posted to by known reputable breeders). I know it's nowhere near 100%, but it seems like it would be more persistant than forum posts, which tend to scatter (and dilute) any truths across many different forums over many years.
Just an idea...how such a beast would be maintained, and by who, is another matter....but it would really help piece together the myriad of stories in an independent manner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?