My big zone push experiment is with Gooseberries and a Red Lake Currant. I discovered that the first two I planted are getting next to no sun, as soon as they go dormant, they are getting moved a couple of feet to where they can get some sun. The first gooseberry so far has grown but not set fruit but the currant had a few handfuls of tasty red berries this year. I have no expectations of huge crops, that handful made me happy. If I lived somewhere they grew I would probably be disappointed. Being in a zone they do not grow, I am happy. I think some times we have expectations that limit how much we will like a plant. If we are happy with a few blooms from a special rose, maybe it does not make a difference if we have to cover the ugly with companion plants. We might not want a garden filled with the ones that struggle. But if it is Mom's special rose, why not try it. As far as the garden and all the Austins, guessing those plants were all donated, Austin may hope that they do well and they can use that to sell more plants. Or if the first spring flush looks good, that is when they will sell tons of plants. If they later look rotten, chances are your average consumer is not going to take notes and they have already made the sales. I am going to order two plants I have been told will probably not like our garden. I figure it is a $25 lesson on garden zones and expectations. If they grow 1/3 of the typical size, I will be thrilled. I know that our lot has a variety of micro climates, so hoping they like the one I pick. Before I knew what rose it was, I moved a self rooted plant from a spot where it got a lot of radiated heat from a garage to what I thought should be a much better place. The other Iceberg roses loved it there, but this one plant turned in to a rusty mildew nasty looking thing....Guess that is the usual look for Simplicity, but the others are okay in that one special spot (not wonderful-but okay) Makes me wonder how many roses are considered great or bad depending on some minor micro-climate changes.

There is a difference in actually uploading content to GardenWeb versus merely providing a link to content on another site. If one uploads a photo to one of the GardenWeb galleries, then you grant to GardenWeb a license for it's use per the terms of use agreement. But a link is not content. If one uses the link option provided at the bottom of a post block to some other web site, it would be preposterous to think GardenWeb then has a license to all that linked site has in content. A link manufactured by the poster in the body of a message is no different, even if it links to content that the poster owns. The link that plantman56 used to display the photo did not give GardenWeb a license for it's use. I see no reason for posters to avoid sharing their photos by linking to them, for you give away no rights by doing so. Uploading directly to a GardenWeb gallery should not be done if you don't want to give GardenWeb a license. Did Nunan infringe plantman56's copyright? Probably. It would seem that plantman56 didn't give Nunan a right to it's use. But plantman56 did upload the photo to Webshots, subject to Webshots' terms of use, which states ... a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, sub licensable, royalty-free license to use, store, display, publish, transmit, transfer, distribute, reproduce, create derivative works of and publicly perform that Content on and through each of the services provided by Webshots. The worrisome words used are 'irrevocable', 'sub licensable', and 'royalty free'. Did Webshots sub license the photo use to Nunan? We don't know. It's a good idea to read the terms of service before uploading to any site. Compare the terms of service of Photobucket to those of Webshots. Photobucket does not include the words 'irrevocable' or 'sub license'. Copyright is federal law and recourse for infringement can be found in US Circuit Court. Failure to place the copyright symbol on a work or failure to register the work does not bar one from recovery, though it may limit the recovery. Where the infringement was via the internet, some parties may be protected unless notified of the infringement in a formal manner.

I'm like mushcreek a lot-we had to outfit the whole house with lights by the final inspections, and after researching the subject-I realized my only way to get stuff I like and not go broke is to buy vintage. So everything was bought on eBay, Etsy, Craigslist, except for can lights in utilitarian areas, under cabinet lighting(these were part of the builder's quote), dining room light, one of the vanity lights(had another plan but had to tweak the last moment), and some lanterns for the backyard. So..except for these new the rest are vintage-two chandeliers, 2 flash mounts, 3 pendants, two vanity lights, one wall chandelier(there is a thing like that apparently)), 3 sconces..we already had table lamps and couple floor ones. I have a big aversion to fans I must say, and also don't really need them in the very mild climate of coastal So Cal. We did have them in our previous home and I was always afraid to turn them on:) (kids did love them though). So no fans. The house is also on the cooler side I'd say. One story. In the previous home upper floor got hot in the summer..here, no such problem. Was able to talk my family out of using fans here. It took a lot of time and energy to source the lights and some needed tweaking. It was not serious tweaking, no rewiring was involved (but for one light) but some parts were harder to get since they had to be European this and that. Eventually we were able to track these in local high end lighting stores, and on Amazon UK. My DH did all the tweaking. Frankly I d rather pay someone since he had enough of his plate, but he was very stubborn about it. I mostly found buying from individual sellers a good experience. They were attentive, responsible, and usually pleasure to deal with. Of course had to pay shipping costs(unless it was a Craigslist find)-but even with this, much much cheaper than buying very ordinary but new lights. Some fixtures were relatively expensive but it was balanced out by all that were dirt cheap. What I'd do differently? Well as much as it was long and tiresome..Nothing probably. That was my way to get the lights that I like for the price that we could bear. Also I know now much more about what questions to ask..what's the diameter of the canopy? does it have a crossbar attached? things like that. because I was asking about wattage and voltage and wiring, and had no idea there are small things that have to be there and due to the age and provenance of a light, they'd be different from standard here. In a fantasy world I'd probably still use internet-and this wonderful high end store where the selection was impressive as were the owners and the sales people who knew what they were selling, and were very helpful, tiny stuff or not.

Further thoughts... I still think this "mom" is more worried about losing her source of income writing for the Chicago Tribune than about her kid's safety, or her kid's feeling for her own privacy. I did read the ONE article linked to, but absolutely will not or ever read anything else this sorry excuse for a human writes. The fact that she didn't even TELL her kid she was doing this, and the child had to discover it on her own... that speaks volumes about the woman's parenting smarts. (LACK THEREOF.) Those I know who talk about their children on FB do have privacy enabled, and they only talk about... hey, my kid graduated, hey, my kid won such and such... and at a certain age, they were consulted before they were posted about. These children didn't become "parenting issues we want to yack about in order to earn a few dollars, or sympathy, or whatever". I don't even HAVE a (human) child, and this peeves me beyond belief.