I have Reine des Violettes and La a Reine Victoria, but they're both still tiny babies. I have RdV against a west-facing fence and her flowers to fade out to a medium mauve colour, but I don't care because the fragrance is divine. My little La Reine Victoria is a tiny thing with tiny flowers, but they're beautifully cupped and super duper fragrant too. The flowers seem really delicate though, so perhaps a spot out of the wind would be best for her.

You are all so wonderful! I should have known I wasn't the only one who thought new granite deserved new plates :-) I only told dh about the new dishes after our massage therapist said she'd take the old ones. NONE of which have broken in 16 years. They're pretty thick and sturdy. The new ones are much thinner and probably WILL get broken! My original plan was to put them in the new cabinets as if they had just magically appeared. Hee, hee. LOL, pinch_me, these plates all have ROOSTERS! I did get black bamboo placemats and yellow napkins. Can't remember if you posted on the dinnerware spam thread. Wellll...I read and appreciated all your comments, and I've been thinking. We are changing the kitchen/family room walls from pale green (which went with our horrid, icky pickled oak cabinets and--ugh--white 4x4 tiled countertops) to yellow. All the windows and doors will have 3" cherry frames. I am getting rid of the cornice boxes and the lace curtains. I want a clean, bright, contemporary look. I think that even though I LOVE the AB and Hurricane, there just isn't any place for blue. I really do like the rooster plates bc they are SO bright and cheery, and I got matching coffee cups, too :-) I think a gold and black granite will add drama to what is really a very simple kitchen. Plus, I have to paint my fish tank gold. It's verdigris. Wonder if I have to take the fish OUT? The house has NO style of its own. But the kitchen will :-) I was in such a tizzy until I read your comments and started thinking! THANK YOU ALL!

You are absolutely not being silly. I would be fairly irate if I were you. It is ridiculous that you are supposed to act as "parent" if and when it suits BM and DH, but then all the sudden you are relegated to some form of unpaid babysitter? Of course you wouldn't force your religion on the child, of course your opinion could have been overruled, of course both bio-parents might have (privately) vehemently disagreed with your opinion - but the fact is that main caretaker of the child, good manners if nothing else would require a simple heads-up and "What is your opinion?" from your DH. I would expect the same if it were a grandmother, aunt or other relative who watched a child every day, as a matter of simple courtesy. There are actually some practical reasons for this as well - what if bio-parents decide child is going to be Jewish, Catholic or Muslim? All of them have some dietary restrictions (I realize that everyone does not choose to follow them). If DH and BM decided on behalf of SS that he was suddenly going to be very strictly religious and you were expected to prepare kosher food (with the separate meat and dairy or however that works), would that be fair to suddenly spring upon you and expect you to just cooperate? How would you be supposed to remind SS to pray five times a day to Mecca if you didn't know which direction it was in? What if you did have some strong objection to a particular religion for some reason - would it just be expected that you, as a primary caretaker of the child, just automatically comply with a decision that you vehemently disagreed with but about which you had not even been consulted? PO1 and others, I'm not sure I ever did update on our situation. DH can now unilaterally make a decision on SS's religion. In the mediation session he and BM came to an agreement, and DH now has sole legal custody. (As most of you know BM has never been involved in medical or educational decisions anyway.) One of the reasons that DH wanted sole legal is that BM has begun sporadically taking SS to a relative's church, said relative then providing a home-cooked meal after. DH is familiar with said church and is very much against it - it is fundamentalist of the worst and most hypocritical kind (i.e., these are the words of our God, which we shall pick parts of to condemn others and say that they are going to hell - the parts which apply to us we shall choose to ignore and dismiss as "outdated".) DH had been hoping to allow SS to make his own decision - of course he will still be able to later in life, but for right now DH must choose a religion for SS in order to pronounce that any other variations or religions are not compatible with SS's religious upbringing. Sigh. (DH did consult me however - he wants us all to go as a family, which I can understand).

So you dismissed all core aeration studies that are for crop fields as irrelevant, then came along with your own crop field study that's relevant , because you say so. Show me a study on core aeration for crop fields. Tilling is not core aerating. I didn't present that OSU article for a discussion about aeration. In fact the one weakness is that it isn't specifically geared toward home lawns, so we have to make some assumptions. I'm the one saying it is hard to find any real scientific studies for a "home lawn." My interest in this article is more in the soil biology that explains why a biologically healthy soil probably doesn't require aeration. I guess this seems hypocritical to some people. Not sure why. As to your next point, yes, I say the soil biology presented in this article is completely applicable to a home lawn. Explain why it isn't. 1. In an average well maintained organic lawn, with no deficiencies, what is the average percentage of organic matter? When you say "organic" lawn I assume you mean any lawn, even yours, that has enough organic matter mulched in each year to maintain a healthy level of organics. I'm not an expert on what the exact organic level should be, but the number depends on the type of soil. Sandy soils will be hard pressed to get very high levels, while heavier soils can exhibit much higher numbers. I think morpheus' lawn is around 15%. Morpheus says 3 or 4% is borderline low, 5 or 6% is good and anything near 8% is excellent. 2. Is this level of organic matter sufficient to get in between all soil particles and prevent all soil particles from compacting and if so, what do you base that assertion on? I understand what you are getting at with these two questions, but again, you'vegotten something into your head that has no basis. You seem to think 100% of the particles must be linked to an organic particle in order for the soil not to need aeration. Nobody but you is asserting that. The article clearly shows the relationship between roots, bacteria, fungi, bugs and worms and all the other things that form macroaggregates. If you have lots of these macroaggregates around the root level, which is what naturally regulates oxygen, then you probably don't need mechanical aeration. Listen, the way science works is that you have to go on a hypothesis that may or may not be proven out over time. Eventually it becomes an accepted "law" or fact if it holds up. I've come to believe that this and other online forums are like laboratories where everybody contributes their experiences with their own lawn. Lawn companies and even universities have biases. Ask dchall about all this. He has been here the whole time and has seen a lot of what works and what doesn't. My position is that I am not going to do something to my lawn unless I have evidence that it does good. Otherwise you can do more harm than good. From the evidence I've seen in this forum, from doing other online research, and just observing problems different people come into this forum with, my conclusion is that there is no need to aerate if you are doing everything else properly. The nice lady, Lisa, started this discussion by saying she had summer fungus caused by over fertilizing ("live and learn"). She cut back on the fertilizer and started aerating. I think she is attributing the lack of fungus to the reduced fertilizer and the aerating. My reaction would be to get a Logan labs test and see if there are any soil problems, and then decide whether aerating is really doing anything. Again, if she has good soil biology and plenty of us never aerate, then why should she have to? I think too many people see lawn companies aerating and just assume it is a good thing to do. The article I presented from OSU suggests the increased oxygen can actually do harm. Scott's recommends you weed and feed in April. Do you think that is a good idea, too?