In my experience, plants are not only mis-tagged, but also many, many plants are somewhat correctly named, but the name is grossly misspelled. Even the machine-printed tags. Some that I have found this year: V. Colorea (coerulea) Mokara Chak Kuan (Chark Kuan) V. Danerk (Dr. Anek) Hey, and that's just the vandaceous! I do have an (obviously) oncidium that was given to me labeled Cymbidium something-or-other. I must guess that if the genus is wrong, the hybrid or species name is probably off as well. Then again, unless your plant is a clone of one that you have in a photo, there are many variables in both species and hybrids - color, shape, form, presentation, etc., and a plant's flowers can vary as the flower ages as well as from blooming to blooming due to cultural factors - temperature, light, etc. So the answer is mmmmm, maybe... Cheers - Nancy

Where do you get off? You are the one that keeps bringing the "Rust Thread" and Simpleton back....time after time... Why don't YOU step back and consider your posts before you write......I hope you find this very offensive and mocking...Etuquette my butt.....this is as stupid as Godspocket comment about Michelle's "Helpful" post about what she is getting shipped and GG's very straight comment to it. If you can't offer up such a well put post as GG's to Michelles post then why have this forum? Someone does something around here to "HELP" other's and offer their own "True" experience with Daylilies and folk's get flamed....amazing...Yet you post this crap and continue year after year to start your "Rust Crap" and now you get off with junk....yeah right....well JJ you best just ignore my post and it's contents....cause it won't be helpful to you...that is for sure....now turn that cheek....what a joke. I sure hope those folks on here that benefit from the positive and important things that are mentioned here get tired of things like this that you and Simpleton like to start. I for one am tired of it! I am one that just calls it as I see it...period. If I have offended any of the fine folk's on here...I'm sorry. Just tired of reading this junk. These other new folks have the right to come on here....learn...ask questions...offer their experience...and post what they want to without getting flamed or called liar's and such by a select few that think they are above it all....give me a break! Life is too short for such B/S. Oh and yes JJ you were as much in my thoughts as Simpleton when I posted on this thread...glad to see you came out so fast...i'm sure numb nuts will be right behind you. i'm glad it's Spring and when the rain stops...I can get back to enjoying my Daylilies and not have to read such a mouth full of B/S as your post JJ. Etiquette my ass..... Rick

i've already spent about$300 on compost and potting mix.I bought 2 yards of the potting mix for my plants I bring home from work and my ws babies.I do my own cuttings also. i use the seed exchange forum for about 95% of my seeds so not too much cost there.. just stamps I think I spent $20. recycle the bubble mailers. I used to spend a ton of money on plants. i've cut way back. hubby builds my arbors and fences and such with wood off of jobs he's done. He brought me a sunflower bird bath from a demo job and brought me posts and troughs, a swinging bench that he dug out of the dump. he's a very cool guy. my brother is giving me a bunch of pavers and edging and soil that he and his wife decided not to use. decided they don't have a green thumb and are moving to an apartment. they are taking the lavander rose I gave them as a wedding present. it was thier color for the wedding. she's going to have me pot it for her. she's afraid she'll kill it. But, back to the original question i spend about $500 a year or so. Oh, I havent gone out to Northwest gardens yet....oh my...do I hear a cha ching coming on? flowerchild5

**Also, if it so wonderful, why won't congress and the first family take this coverage** That's sort of a confusing question--it seems like you think the new law creates new insurance policies that we all have to switch to, or something? And so you're wondering why Congress and the first family don't switch to the new policies? But the law doesn't do that. There is no coverage that Congress or the Obamas, or you for that matter, could switch to. The only new coverage options are the state-run exchanges for people with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance on the private market, and a few new options for low-income people. But if you don't have a preexisting condition that has prevented you from getting insurance, or if you aren't low-income enough, you don't qualify for those new options. So there's nothing that Congress, the first family, etc., could switch to. Under the new law, you just keep your existing insurance (or move to whatever other policy your employer offers that you want). And so does Congress and the first family. What the law does is (1) change the rules for insurance companies so that your existing insurance is more reliable, (2) requires everyone to have health insurance, and (3) creates more options for lower-income people and for people with preexisting conditions, so that such people can get insurance more easily (through state-run exchanges, Medicaid and so on). So in other words, the coverage you have under it is the same as the coverage you have now--and the coverage Congress and the first family have is the same as what they have now--except with better rules: now your insurer can't cancel you for getting sick, can't exclude your kids for pre-existing conditions, as of 2014 also won't be able to exclude adults for pre-existing conditions, has to let you keep your children on your insurance until they're 26 if you want to, can't impose a lifetime cap on benefits, and so on. As for the waiver, I really have a problem with Fox News and others leaving out a few critical details, like the fact that McDonalds, Universal Orlando (the theme park), and other very mainstream companies got it (and you can google "McDonalds political contributions" to see that most of McDonalds' donations went to Republicans), and the fact that the waiver only lasts for one year. Apparently the purpose of it is to let part-time lower-income workers keep their extremely basic plans, which do impose a lifetime cap on benefits, while the details of their new plans get ironed out and the new system gets up and running. Most employers don't offer such bare-bones plans, so they don't need a waiver. I'm also a little confused by what you said about creating dozens or hundreds of new federal agencies. Here's an article (link below) that clarifies that. I took a look at the letter you posted, but there's no sense in responding to it because it's not talking about the law that actually got passed. It's talking about certain things that, at the time the letter was written, were being considered. I'm just going to stick to the law we actually have, not a 15-month-old letter about other possibilities. But I do want to point something out--you were comparing the price projections on page 28 of the letter to your own insurance premiums in 2010. Those price projections were for 2016. Even assuming those projections turn out to be correct--which would be a total fluke, since they were based on things that did not end up being passed in the actual law--it doesn't make sense to compare your price in 2010 to a projected 2016 price and then say, based on that, that the new law is going to increase your costs.