I'm probably one of the most vocal people on this forum, and I can look anyone in the eye and politely say I've helped thousands of people deal with and get better results from soils we might describe as bagged, commercially prepared, peat-based, heavy, or any one of several other adjectives, and I've done it without cutting off any discussion. Just SAYING that something is happening doesn't make it a reality. I recognize and deal with that fact that most people grow in heavy soils every day, and I've said hundreds of times that you can grow healthy plants in heavy soils - it's just more difficult and the margin for error reduced. I would ask the question Does anyone think and can they make a case that a heavy soil is better than a light soil from the plants perspective, which would include growth and vitality? When anyone expresses an opinion that almost no one agrees with, it invites disagreement. It's my opinion that to express an opinion that nearly no one else shares and to expect no one to disagree with that opinion is folly. If someone disagrees with an opinion, it is not berating anyone, it is simply expressing an alternate opinion. If someone's opinion flies in the face of settled science and that is pointed out, there may be some sort of emotional response from the person who offered the unsupportable opinion, but where does the fault for that lie? If someone keeps referring to cow's laying eggs, and as the eggs being an important source of sustenance to ancient man, and subsequently it's pointed out to that person over and over from multiple sources each time this is suggested that it simply doesn't agree with known science, and the overwhelming number of people reading the suggestion disagree, where does the blame for the discomfort lie? Wouldn't it be a better thing for the person posting about cow's eggs to become more familiar with the science so they would realize they are banging their head against a wall? Don't we have some sort of obligation to provide accurate information here that we can support? I think a thread should be started about light being king, in which Jane or anyone else that thinks light is king can state their case and others can offer their input. That way, instead of the topic being brought up out of context and off topic in thread after thread, a short statement (when it's appropriate) in a thread with a link to the compilation of all the proof and support can be provided without destroying the harmony/continuity of thread after thread, this one being a prime example, along with at least a dozen others of mine that I can think of. Doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable? I want to look closer at Jane's contention that light is king. "I believe light trumps all because I see houseplants underlit, over-watered and dying as the most common problem people deal with. Changing media will do nothing to help those people. Increasing light will. First, I allow as true the observation that some (most) houseplants are underlighted. I ask sincerely, what about those that are perfectly lit and are suffering from the effects of another limiting factor. Is light then king? What about the plant in poor light that is dying because it's never been fertilized or because it has a high level of soluble salts in the soil, or because it has mites or hasn't been watered in 3 weeks ....... will making the light perfect eliminate these other limiting factors? To logically hold that light is more important than these other issues, you MUST have answers to these questions. I have the answer: light is simply another limiting factor with the same potential to limit or improve growth, as a long list of other potential limiting factors. There is a difference in the way I support my contention than how Jane supports hers. Science, and the contentions I put forth cover all the bases, Jane has put together a scenario that illustrates light as the limiting factor in that particular case, so of course improving the limiting factor will improve growth ..... but ONLY to the degree the next most limiting factor will allow. If this wasn't true, the ONLY thing we would need to worry about in order to have consistently perfect plants is to ensure perfect light. "Of all the 'limiting factors' light produces the quickest increase in growth, causing the plant to use water and nutrients faster improving both leaf and root growth. I am talking about light appropriate to the plant grown. Changing media does nothing for an underlit, over-watered plant. It will still die." Light is necessary for 'sustained growth', but it doesn't necessarily produce the quickest growth. It's probably easiest to illustrate this using a couple of examples. A) What about the plant in either good light or bad light that is stalled because of an N,P, or K deficiency. If it's in perfect light, light can't be improved because it's already perfect. If it's in poor light, the nutritional deficiency is the limiting factor and making the light perfect will not increase growth. B) What about the plant that is horribly root bound? Extremely tight roots seriously inhibit growth and vitality. Will improving light eliminate this impediment to growth. Of course not, but repotting will. Additionally, changing the soil can assuredly correct that over-watering issue referred to in the quote text, as many here will vouch for. The point is, logic won't allow us to devise a situation in which light is potentially the limiting factor, then use that particular situation to suggest that light is ALWAYS the most important factor. For every case we can imagine where light is limiting, I can imagine 30 more where any one of the individual nutrients, plus cultural conditions like temperature, moisture levels, soil conditions, insects, disease, even where the plant is in the growth cycle, can be a factor more limiting than light. This doesn't even take into consideration that we're talking about containerized plants. They're portable - so if they don't like the light where they are - move them. If you can't move them, deal with it and try to make sure that light is the only limiting factor, because if you forget to water, or you leave the plant out on the porch in a sub-zero cold snap, light is not going to be king. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and everyone has the right to post it here at GW, as long as the people overlooking the threads don't think the rules are being fractured. I think our 'rights' stop there. There is no right to expect everyone to agree with us, and there is no right to have our opinions well-received. Those things depend on how we support our opinions with facts and logic - the concrete facets; but, there are also abstract facets that determine how our offerings are received, which include things like timing, whether or not they are on topic, the reason this opinion was expressed in the first place, the manner in which it was expressed, whether it was offered in a positive or negative context .... Opening a post with the statements: "Without light you wouldn't have roots. The information offered above is backward. Light is always king." which are decidedly off-topic and when similar statements have caused plenty of friction in the past is really at the very heart of the sort of thing everyone else is being accused of, and it certainly proved unhealthy for the continuity and harmony of another thread. Suggesting that people would be better served having a realistic discussion about the gritty mix infers that the discussions we have are not realistic. I might suggest that it would be much more difficult for a person who has never used it, and would never use it, to honestly determine what is realistic and what isn't. I'm not asking this to be sarcastic or mean, but only for illustrative purposes: What part of any posts about light shed any realism on the OT, or what was there in any of those posts offering anything that hasn't been discussed at length? No one ever tries to change the way Jane grows or the way anyone else that expresses a wish to grow in a certain way grows. And I don't see anyone trying to change the way she thinks. These things just don't happen unless the person's attitude is conducive to this type of input as far as I can see, so she is left to grow in whatever way she chooses and think as she wishes - as it should be, and I wish her great success - honestly. No one ever forces anything down anyone's throat - people just won't allow it. People do disagree with some of the things she says, but that's normal, people disagree with me all the time. We learn a great deal from disagreement. Key to not being disagreed with is to give people as little as possible to disagree with (a command of the topic) and not go to the other extreme of posting statements we are sure will cause others to disagree. Al

Thank you Brandon7 and others for commenting on this subject. Speaking of "black plastic", Oregonwoodsmoke, it is even worse material to use, in my opinion. Over years, it tends to become semi-disintegrated, so if you pull it, it falls into pieces. Oh, it was such a mess, such un-sighting! We gardeners like to dig around, try around, move things around from time to time, and it was such a sinking feeling to put a forceful dig into the ground and felt a sturdy fabric underneath it. Basically, we are tangling the unnutrual material with the natural soil, and that makes it very un-natural to gardening with it even if it works somewhat. But I think I had said enough on this point.

Happy December 23 Festivus Day I thought all along that I was standing alone at this holiday cross roads but you all have with great humor and hysterical examples really helped to take the edge off holiday decorating for meÂthanks. Well as always truth is much stranger than fiction, I canÂt believe I spent time fretting over the issue of having to un decorate our tree. How could it not have dawned on me when I was hanging little Lady Apples on the tree that Basil our 100 lb lab with a big appetite and the uncanny ability to spring jump 6-7 feet high from a standing position would be more than happy to undecorated for us. The funny thing was we found all of the ornament hooks that I had used to hang the apples lined up all in a row on his bed in the same fashion a party guest would line up appetizer tooth picks on their plate. The tree is now looking dry, sparse, and tired I have replaced the apples with millet and as long as the dog doesnÂt develop a taste for bird food we might have something to gather around on Christmas morning. My sister the tropical lurker came across this link and wanted me to share it with you all. Now a Festivus Pole/ De Lighter marketed together could make for one great holiday combo package. Here is a link that might be useful: 'Seinfeld' Spurs Festivus Pole Sales

It's been years but... we contact contractors who bui8ld with Trex and ask if they have material they can't use, old boards, boards that would go to the dump. We've used them in many projects. Put them up on Facebook, on Nextdoor, in your neighborhood mailing list. I guarantee womoen will want them