I don't understand why so many folks here at the KT are rooting for Rachel and Brendon when so many folks here at the KT were so adamantly against Boston Rob and Amber when they were on TAR. The folks who were against Rob and Amber kept saying that because she'd won $1 million on Survivor that they shouldn't be on TAR. Well, Rachel won $1 on Big Brother, so why is it ok for her but not Amber? I think that some of the reasons they've gone to India so many times are that seeing the plight of the people who live there might awaken a humanitarian spirit in those who watch the show; the country can certainly use the money the producers pay in order to film in the country; the show undoubtedly uses (and pays) local folks to work behind the scenes while they are "in county" which is greatly needed; and there are a lot of local customs, etc., that make for good challenges. I like the Kentucky guys. They are having a good time, they're not giving each other grief, and they're playing fairly. And speaking of Boston Rob and Amber, Rob showed a lot of smarts when they were on. Remember the challenge where they had to take a specific number of hardbound books from some store and deliver them to a library and put them all on the shelves? They had to use a handtruck to move them from one location to the other. Well, Rob figured out how to stack the correct number of books on the handtruck so that they only had to make ONE trip between the two locations, while all of the other teams had to make at least two trips. Then, there was that awful meat-eating challenge where one team member had to eat an incredible amount of really gross stuff. If you didn't finish a challenge, you had to endure a two-hour penalty at that location before you could move on to the next task. Well, Rob knew that there was no way that he could eat that stuff, so he said to Amber that all he had to do was officially say he was sitting out the challenge, then wait a few minutes and then talk one other team into sitting it out, too. Because he had started the penalty first, it would guarantee that at least one team would be behind them so they wouldn't get eliminated. He had no trouble at all convincing another team to sit out that challenge, and I think at least one other team decided to sit it out, too. So... Phil made a big mistake on this week's episode when he said to the team who had the two-hour penalty at the pit stop that this was the first time in TAR history that a team that had to wait through a penalty hadn't ended up being eliminated -- because Rob and Amber did it during their season.

Gosh, lets see if I remember this. The sisters got to the mat just ahead of Victor & Tammy. But, sisters could not be checked in because they did not have their travel documents. They had to go back to the boat yard, get their stuff then, back to the finish mat. Michael & Mark decided to go back for their back packs before they did the challange. They used most of their money on the taxi back to the boat yard and then back to the location of the challange. They got to the challange, finished it and headed to the Temple where the finish mat was. They did not have enough money to pay the full taxi fare so they gave some of their own personal 'stuff' to the taxi driver as payment. They got to the mat before the sisters returned but, got the time penalty, 4 hours?, because they used there own stuff as payment. The sisters got back to the mat, were checked in as the 4th team to arrive, no other penality. Michael & Mark were then checked in as the last team to arrive but, it was an non elimination leg of the race. The catch is, on the next leg of the race they will have extra stuff to accomplish. Plus, there was time left on their penality after the girls returned, that time, about 30 minutes (?) will be added to their start time. They will start the next leg of the race last, plus what ever was left on their penality. OK, Kids...did I get that right? sooey

pseudo, What BM is doing to her kids is abuse, in my opinion. But, my opinion means squat. I'm not sure what your entire situation is, but have you and DH taken a 'defensive' stance? It sounds as if everything you do is defending yourselves and that no matter how ridiculous BM's complaints are, she is being taken seriously.... maybe because you are defending yourselves? When she says her son is bi polar... I'd respond by asking her why she thinks that. Then, suggest a professional evaluate him. I might even add my opinion to the professional, "he seems like a normal 10 year old to me. I'd hate to think of him being labeled as bi polar if he really isn't. I'd hate to see him on medication if he really doesn't need to be." and let the professional make the determination. It's just my opinion, but it's a bad parent that pushes to get their kid diagnosed and on medication for something, unless there are obvious signs that others besides mom notice. Thinking Munchausen by proxy? (Is mom getting something out of kid having mental health problem?) When mom wants to split up the kids by taking them on alternate weekends, I might ask if she thinks it's important for her kids to spend time with her together? It might create more rivalry if they alternate weekends. Imagine one kid comes back saying we did ______. and the other kid feels like he missed out on that fun. It can become a competition and about who has more fun with mom or who mom likes better. That rivalry can happen when they are together, but might be worse when they are split up. My SD is constantly worried that her mom is doing things with BF's kids when she's not there, or that she talks to her sister more than her. I'd point out that it's not about mom & her convenience, it's about the kids & what's best for them, even if it means mom is inconvenienced. If you are not defensive but making it about the kids, not about mom or you/DH, then you might get better results. Mom wants to be seen as the victim and your complaint of her is only going to fuel her image as a victim. But, if you are not complaining about what mom is doing, but complain about things that hurt/affect the kids... how can DSS or mom argue with that. Let me give you an example: In our situation, BM says she'll call SD back, then doesn't. Instead of DH calling BM (or someone else) and saying how terrible BM is for not calling SD, he would say to BM (or someone else) how upset SD gets when her mom promises to call but doesn't. She looks at the clock (when BM says I'll call you back in 30 minutes) and mopes around. Sometimes she calls BM back & gets her voice mail. If DH were to call BM and be critical of her not calling (or answering her phone), BM would feel attacked (& think DH is telling her what to do) and someone else might see him criticizing mom as him attacking mom. But, when it's presented from how it makes SD feel, it's not attacking mom, it's worrying about SD, which gets a different reaction. (mom still gets defensive & makes excuses but she can't argue that SD isn't sad when SD is sad by it.)

Thanks everyone. I usually show Bob my picture posts, but not this one ... lol, I'm feeling better and itching to get back outside without having to sneak around ... :-) Pam, I thought your first response was very clever, but laughed with your 2nd one since it sounded like me. My inclination is to take everything totally seriously and then only later catch on to the gag ... :-) The rose is "Pookah". It's available from Burlington Rose Nursery. Burling's website has contact information. If you ask via email she will send you a rose list. As well as being beautiful all winter (the big two day freeze didn't faze it) Crawford lettuce is delicious. I'll have seeds when they ripen. From what I've read porter weed can be a thug in tropical climates, but not around here. Only once have I had it come back from seeds the next spring.