Not hosta, but several others were run down, in a true hit run. Someone came into our driveway presumably to turn around too fast, hit the gravel then skidded over a daylily, clematis roots, catmint and several annuals then hit a picket fence. We assumed the speed/gravel part because they took off, and neither us nor a neighbor saw this. They picked up the fence and righted it using plants they hadn't run over to hold it up. I noticed the squished plants (the pansies were goners, everything else has come back to some extent, the daylily only has distorted leaves to show for it, the clem is fine, the catmint is still stunted). Couldn't for the life of me figure out how they missed the fence...until it tipped over on it's own revealing the broken posts. The VERY NEXT DAY an elderly gentleman came to get some lily of the valley, and backed out over the squished daylily and pansies again! That bed has been there since we bought the place, seems that was some seriously bad timing because it never happened before that.

A couple of notes because the rest is going to be rather long and involved: Lynda, I have the Vitex marked for you and in your baggie! And thank you for the marigolds! They will be very interesting with my others! Dessie I would be more than happy to receive your little helper's seed packets! I think it's great! Wendy Try some Chai Spice tea, it works wonders in helping clear up colds and flu. I always add a dollop of honey to help sooth the throat. It's a staple in our house and really does help. Alright, here is my take on this.. I can understand how many were hoping that the two swaps would not coincide, but, we all knew there was a fair chance of that happening. For myself, I know that I continued to update my list, even well after Patty's swap's mailing deadline. I did my updates using the same method we did for Patty's swap- using an updated date. Even had I not, I knew there was a good chance the two swaps would overlap. I joined this one knowing full well- according to the guidelines posted for it- that I may NOT receive as many as I sent in. That I would receive as many as were sent in FOR me, up to five packets of the SAME item. I recall there being some issue with this and a member who became very rude in their comments about this fact. Yes, my package from the What's Left swap is in the second batch to go out. No, I did not keep strict record of what I sent to those who were in the What's Left swap. I did keep better records of what I'm sending for this swap. I also know that a lot of people will be sending in baggies of seeds marked as extras- not dedicated for anyone, but to add in when it's seen those items are on someone's list. No, these may not be some of the rarer or more exclusively wanted items on someone's list. But if someone has some of those rarer or more specific items to share, I'm sure they would have put them into your baggie before they mailed. So, I don't see that anyone would be missing out on anything. The only way I could see having updated one's list further as complicating Patty's swap would be if someone had removed things from their list. Updating and adding items would not have conflicted. Because if there were any extras of what you were wanting, Patty would have included them. So, I guess I'm not really understanding how there is such a need to update the lists just because one is in both swaps. If I receive duplicates, wonderful! Because the things on my list are things I want! If I don't receive something on my list, then no one had it to share. If I receive so many of something that I can't plant it all, then I can bless someone else by offering it up for a trade. So, perhaps I'm being dense here, but how would one not receive something sent in specifically for them (up to FIVE packets of the same item!) that was on their wants list in this swap? Everyone has the chance to see your wants as posted and you have had the option to add to that list, as many including myself have this whole time. The only thing I could really see the two swaps happening almost simultaneously possibly affecting would be one's have's list. I'm sorry, I don't mean to upset or offend anyone. I'm just honestly trying to understand why this is such an issue. So please don't take this as meaning to offend or as pointed to anyone in particular. This is just me trying to understand why so many are upset about this. If you prefer to email me privately and help me understand it, I would be pleased with that and please do! Perhaps there are aspects and issues with this that I'm not readily seeing and should consider. I don't want to keep the thread off track by my question becoming a debate here. Perhaps there can be some adjustments of dates if this swap happens in the late summer or again next winter, but for this year it is as it is and personally, I'm really enjoying it! Nancy, I hope you don't decide to drop out, because I know that I should have at least a couple of things from your list, perhaps more. But I'll respect your choice and be your Garden Buddy either way :) Fran, you have a real job ahead of you and I don't know how those like you and Patty do it! Leave me hosting my "pair em up and let em go" or true RR type swaps! I think those of you that host this kind of swap are awesome! Angela, you have been a wonderful help to Fran and all of us in this swap! I know the time it can take to code pages like that, though updates are easier once the initial work is done, and I want to say THANK YOU for the time and work you are putting in on this swap for everyone's benefit! Kathy~ heading off to stuff more little baggies and envelopes.

i would love some of these if i could!! that would be so cool!! armenian cucumber tortarelo cucumber golden gopher musk melon? royal golden melon lee okra zolotistala melon casaba melon 1 bosc pear 2 mustard gai choy 1 garden peach tomoto 4 okra mix 1 daikon radish 1 canary bell peppers 2 lemon balm 1 sweet chocolate peppers 1 bok choy 2 green zebra tomato 3 peppers yolo wonder 1 peter peppers this year, i think will be a great year for that square foot gardening!! especially with all that is needing to be put in the ground!!! **big smile** i have lots of 6 blazing star liatres 21 single white angel trumpet-smells awesome 14 lavender datura- don't smell but is pretty!! 4 sesamie seeds so if anyone want's these, let me know. :') these are filled pretty good!@! ~Medo

Oils well that ends not so well?? End of Oil Could Fuel 'End of Civilization as We Know It' By Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Senior Writer posted: 14 December 2004 03:28 pm ET SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents in a long-running debate over when the world will run out of oil squared off Tuesday in a crowded room of scientists, reaching only one conclusion: The supply of fossil fuels is fixed and the world economy will eventually have to wean itself from oil. The most dire and perhaps speculative forecast calls for global oil production to peak next year -- specifically on Thanksgiving. Others say the end can't be accurately predicted, but that it is likely decades rather then centuries away, and that the consequences will be grave: huge inflation, global resource wars -- China vs. the United States was emphasized as a possibility -- and the end of civilization as we know it. Other experts at the face-off, held here during a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, said there is nothing to worry about in the short term. U.S. peaked already The argument stretches back to a 1956 prediction by M. King Hubbert that oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would peak in the early 1970s. He was right. The United States now imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it uses. Kenneth Deffeyes, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, has taken Hubbert's logic a step further and predicts the world's oil production will top out late in 2005. "It's Thanksgiving plus or minus three weeks," said Deffeyes, who grew up in the oil fields and was a researcher at Shell Oil for several years. Deffeyes second book on the topic, "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak" (Hill and Wang) is due out in March. His crystal ball is full of complex formulas and, most scientists agree, numbers that are impossible to accurately pin down, such as the amount of oil in known fields and how much more will be found. "This is not science," said Michael Lynch, a political scientist and energy consultant. "This is forecasting." Lynch agrees there are problems with relying so heavily on oil, and he sees more price volatility ahead. But he argues that many smaller deposits will be found and they will add up to "a lot of oil" over time. He also faults the running-dry-soon predictions as being based not on geology, but on politics and economics: Oil production in various countries has flattened or fell at certain times for reasons having nothing to do with how much they could produce, Lynch says. Further, Lynch contends, it is not possible to predict the discovery of new oil fields or the true size of existing in-ground reserves. He likens current oil forecasts to stock market prediction. Charts fit history well, he says, "but they're not predictive." Alternatives? Likewise, analyst Bill Fisher of the University of Texas at Austin sees plenty of oil over the next few decades. Fisher sees no reason to panic. He expects the world to gradually transition to an economy based on natural gas during the first half of this century, then to a hydrogen economy before 2100. He pointed out that estimates of oil reserves tend to grow over time, no matter who does the guessing. The debate got more complex at this point. Caltech physicist David Goodstein sees little hope for hydrogen, which he said requires fossil fuels in order to extract. And natural gas, like oil and coal and shale (another proposed alternative) are all finite, Goodstein argues. "The oil will run out," he said. "The only question is when." Goodstein puts little stock in nuclear fusion, which for decades has been proposed as the cousin of fission with unlimited potential. "Fusion and shale oil are the energy sources of the future, and they always will be," he quipped. Solar energy shows promise, he said, but "we haven't figured out how to use it." So Goodstein takes a pragmatic approach. It doesn't matter so much when we run out, he argues, but what we do about it. Global trap Goodstein, author of the book "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" (W.W. Norton & Company) sees a looming world crisis that could fuel war and bring society to its knees. "We have created a trap for ourselves," Goodstein said. The United States has so far avoided serious consequences from the trap by relying on imports. The country uses about 7 billion of the 30 billion barrels of oil produced annually around the globe. And it makes us rich. Oil consumption equals standard of living, experts agree. Meanwhile, other countries are beginning to clamor for oil at unprecedented rates, and therein lies the recipe for potential disaster. China uses a comparatively modest 1.5 billion barrels a year (perhaps 2.4 billion this year) according to some estimates. India consumes less. Both countries' economies are becoming increasingly dependent on oil, however. China's consumption is expected to grow 7.5 percent per year, and Indias 5.5 percent, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. By 2060, oil production will have to triple just to meet global population growth and maintain current standards of living, said Stanford University geophysicist Amos Nur. Yet China's own production has been flat since the 1980s and it now imports 40 percent of what it needs. 'When do we panic?' "What matters in the short term is, when do we panic?" Nur said. "In my opinion, the point of panic has already taken place." It's a behind-the-scenes sort of panic. The two largest economies on Earth -- China and the United States -- have already incorporated the finite nature of oil into their national security policies, Nur argues, citing policy statements from both governments reflecting the need to secure stability in oil-producing countries and a free flow of the resource. The war in Iraq, a country second only to politically unstable Saudi Arabia in oil reserves, is another clue, he said. "There is a huge conflict that might be emerging," Nur said. Some of the fine points of the various presentations were argued, even resulting in one shouting match over how much oil is in Saudi Arabia. But none of the roughly 500 scientists in the room voiced disagreement with Nur's view of the potential for war. If the world is sliding toward global conflict over oil, the skids may be pretty well greased, politically speaking. Governments do not have the political will to prepare for the end of oil, says Goodstein, the Caltech physicist. "Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime this century, when the fuel runs out," Goodstein said, adding that "I certainly hope my prediction is wrong."