Chuckiebtoo - I appreciate both your love of worms and the processes associated with using them for 'composting'. However, based on a growing body of reading-based 'knowledge' and a small but growing bit if first-hand experience, I don't share your "almost magic" perspective of what worm guts do. While there is little - but some - doubt on my part about the "fact" that worm-gut-processing does indeed "add" some beneficial component to the output, I am beginning to strongly suspect this is yet another in a long and growing list of "scientific facts" that is technically/scientifically "true", but practically/real-life exaggerated. In order to illustrate my point and attempt to demonstrate that I am not just being "contrary", let me provide an example in a completely different field. Some years back - over 2-decades - a graduate student working in completing their Master's degree in fisheries performed a perfunctory examination of the effects of "over-crowding" spawners in a couple of TINY streams in the state of Washington. As part of the requirements for a Master's degree in fisheries, one must produce and "publish" the work at least through the university's press.The field work was "good" and the results were unambiguous: It was scientifically "true" that above a certain density, increased fish numbers resulted in reduced production. The scientific explanation was not complex: increased numbers of spawners meant that fish were constructing their redds (salmon 'nests') on top of previous spawner's nests, and thereby destroying the first one. Sounds perfectly "reasonable", and there was not doubt about the "scientific" fact. However... "More fish "allowed" in the river means LESS fish production" was a clarion-call to commercial fishermen. They could now claim the SCIENTIFIC "high ground" and DEMAND that fisheries managers prevent "over-escapement" by allowing the commercial fishermen to catch more fish out in the ocean before they reached the spawning streams and "harmed" the stock. Commercial fishermen are among the most politically powerful groups in the natural resource exploitation/management community. They were very capable of hiring "scientists" (in this case AKA "biostitutes") to "verify" the "scientific proof of the "danger" of "over-escapement", Soon - VERY SOON - "over-escapement was the watchword for every government "scientist/fisheries manager" in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, it became - BY LAW - a requirement that the state fisheries managers incorporate "over-escapement" prevention in the state's salmon management plan. Where's the 'flaw' in the above, "you" ask? The "science" was performed in an excruciatingly small "piece of the world". TWO, SMALL (you could STEP across them), streams in the Puget Sound drainage. Secondly, ALL subsequent "science" performed around the subject was directed at "proving" the concept of "over-escapement", NOT TESTING/CHALLENGING IT, which is exactly what Science, REAL Science, is supposed to do! In fact, when a few scientists tried to point out the error of applying the result of a VERY small scale scientific project to a GLOBAL scale, they were shouted down. To put it mildly. The result has been a STEADY decline in salmon production in the State of Alaska. The almost complete collapse of salmon fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington. I am reminded of "What are you going to believe, me (the "scientist") or your lying eyes." By the way, when confronting the voodoo witch-doctors - aka fisheries scientist proponents of "over-escapement - I would ask; "What did all these salmon do before we humans came along to "help" them with their "over-escapement" problems? True to their form, those witch-doctors raised up in violent anger, but had to initially tuck tail and run. However, as is so desperately sad with today's "science", they simply went off and schemed an explanation. It goes like this. "What we are doing is "leveling" the peaks and valleys in the long-term population trends, thereby assuring a STABLE SOURCE OF SALMON FOR THE COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERIES. (Emphasis mine.) This rationalization - by way of "science" - is the bread and butter of the priests of the religion of science that pervade the scientific community today. They can "explain" ANYTHING they want to, and when challenged, simply retort to laymen that it is "too complicated" for "you" to understand, and simply screech "Heretic" at those that have the technical ability and credentials to point out the obvious flaws in their ecclesiastical assertions. Was all the subsequent "science"of "over-escapement" "peer-reviewed"? Yes, at least most of it. Was all the subsequent "science" published in a "peer-reviewed" journal of "SCIENCE"? Most of it, yes. Was all of that peer-review highly corrupt? MOST OF IT, YES! And so goes most of what I have seen in the past 40+ years as a professional "scientist". I "see" the same sort of thing with worm "tea", worm "compost", and other "scientific" "facts" about the "magic" of worms. Is there "scientific proof" that the "output" of a worm's gut is "better" than the "input". Yes in proper context. Is there a MOUNTAIN of evidence that such "betterness" is something less than the "magic" so widely claimed? Yes, also I would assert. Having said all of the above, I am perfectly "fine" with using terms like "magic" to report on surprising results we all observe in our hobbies and personal passions. I do it myself. As Arthur C. Clarke is quoted as saying: Any technology sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. So, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the beneficial effects of "worming"; I acknowledge that the "scientific "truth" " of those "facts" are "scientifically" undeniable, but I am increasingly convinced that the magnitude of those effects are greatly exaggerated when applied to the "real world". In the case of the topic of this thread, I remain comfortable with suggesting to fulofwin that all of the extra effort of "worming" MAY not produce the "magic" results he/she has read/heard about. I believe he/she is probably capable of evaluating the relative merits of the comments he/she receives in his thread regardless of who posts them. I don't think you and I disagree as much as it might appear. I think the primary difference in our points of views is a matter of degree: You "love" worms, and I just "like" them. Paul This post was edited by pskvorc on Wed, Aug 27, 14 at 14:40

Hmmmm....I'm wondering why you'd even want 3 ceiling fixtures?? That seems pretty excessive to me. Why not find a more simple fan with lights, take down the other fixtures and put a plate over the boxes? Combining a ceiling fan with 2 chandys sounds a little over the top. IF all 3 lights had to stay I'd look into 2 recessed lights. I think it would be nice to compromise with something pretty but more simple in it's styling...your husband sleeps there too. :)

janey g, It's easy to theorize about why something didn't work. There is a reason that people specialize in concrete work. Hopefully, they have a little more knowledge than the average pb and work with the concrete supplier to insure a good product. My deck crew has put down thousands of decks and occasionally one will go south for some reason ranging from a screw up at the redi-mix plant to the fact that sometimes the concrete curing just gets away from the finishers. Untimately, it's the pb's responsibility to make it right no matter what the excuses. Concrete is not always perfect and an occasional hairline crack is generally considered an acceptable imperfection. If you have a lawyer, you can also hire a testing lab to test the concrete. The deck will need to be cored, but the lab should be able to provide cement content and other appropriate info. Good luck.

Kswl - Our kids did Irish dance but their instructor always made a point of differentiating the spelling between ceilidh and ceili. He said that Ceildhi is Scottish Gaelic while Ceili is Irish Gaelic. They both have the same pronunciation and meaning. I wonder if it might be a regional thing - we're just outside Philadelphia. We recently attended a small Feis to watch my niece and afterwards we thoroughly enjoyed the evening ceili - as the Irish would say it was great craic. And speaking of bagpipes - DD went to Columbia and one year I happened to take a day trip into the city to spend the afternoon with her and attend a Broadway matinee. How thrilling to find out that I had stumbled onto the Tartan Day Parade. That was in 2002 and Sean Connery was the Grand Marshall. This year's parade is on Saturday, April 11 and Graham McTavish (Outlander) has the honor. I'd love to go for the parade again. There's something about pipes and drums that stirs my soul. DS married a lass who was Scottish and all her relatives came to the wedding in their Prince Charlie jackets and Crawford tartans. Unfortunately the bagpiper who was to pipe the wedding party into the reception canceled at the last minute. The string quartet was lovely but nearly as exciting. It sounds like you have thought of everything. I hope your party is a huge success and that the weather cooperates too. Have you watched the documentary "Jig" - about the Irish Dancing World Championship?