help refuting a raised bed critic

help refuting a raised bed critic
here is a quote from a square foot and raised bed critic
alf :
For effect, a ‘newbie’ will construct beds of uniform size but, after the first year, will find that, for example, potatoes will require vastly more space than onions, and brassicas more than carrots, with the result that fitting crops to beds becomes a problem.  On the other hand, by leaving the plot ‘open’, each planting can follow on from its neighbor with just a narrow walkway left in between.  Walkways themselves will also move across the plot, in line with the sowing pattern, which means that all parts of the plot (and the nutrients they contain) will be used over time.  Conversely, paths between raised beds will never be used and will be inevitably wider, if only to permit the passage of a wheelbarrow, something that wouldn’t happen in ‘open’ format where barrows will be left at the sides of the plot without undue inconvenience.

It's unclear what sort of comparison is being made. I'm guessing a row garden? The advantage (well, one of the advantages) of raised beds the SFG way, and separate walkways, is that you don't have to turn and till your soil every year (or every half year). This is a real time and back saver. It also makes it much easier to do weeding, since any weeds are not deeply ensconced in soil.

The assumption that you're missing out by not rotating over the prior year's walkway (wheelbarrow way) is definitely not true with my near-saline soil infiltrated by bermuda grass.

I don't exactly understand the argument about fitting crops to spaces. I personally have a bit of a problem, but that's only because I have so many perennials. But I think anyone who has a yearly reboot (aka "hard freeze") shouldn't have any trouble figuring out how much of what they want to plant. If they need more potatoes, they'll just build a box dedicated to potatoes, or put in extra squares in a different box. I guess the author is stating the idea that you can easily expand your row garden. Which is sort of true, but there's no free lunch. If you expand the row you'll also have to expand the amount of soil that you till, water, weed, and fertilize.

The critic doesn't know what they are saying as they have never done SFG.

What is not to love about this beautiful SFG at a school.  Different sized beds. Wood chip covered aisles for mud-free walking.  

Or this huge garden.

Or my garden for a little old lady.  

thank you all for you responses if it is not against rules the would like  include a link 
to the other forum where the debate it taking place. I defiantly need a bit of back up. 

they seem think even flat bed are better in rows but even if bed are flat and 
planted with Mel's mix they at same depth as raised bed they produce more than rows.
 I think those I am arguing with seem to be math impaired and they are also from uk.
Mel's books have be published in uk. correct?
.    
their arguments seem to be blinkered and also primitive when comes vegetable gardening.

 seems you guys night owls like I am.

markqz  It's unclear what sort of comparison is being made

that is why I ask the person to post quote full of info 
because there seemed to be missing information.

OhioGardener wrote:No need to refute, to each their own. If the person doesn't want to use raised beds, that is their choice.  There is no mandate to use raised beds, nor is there one to use SFG techniques.

it is not matter of refuting it is a matter that they claim raise beds are inferior 
and produce poorer results which definitely not true. my full opinion  of them 
would likely  get me banned for using words not allowed on this forum.

The purpose of the Forum is to support folks who want to do SFG. The purpose is not to argue with someone who does not want to try it.

This person who you are trying to argue with doesn't know what he is talking about. Drop him.

Sanderson,

I fully agree with your assessment.

The arguments presented by the raised-bed opponent are nonsensical.  One cannot argue with irrationality.

Locking this thread.