My standout new plant this year was by far Gallardia "Oranges and Lemons". It was the last plant blooming in late Nov after frosts and made tireless stands of beautiful, bright flowers all summer long. I just deadheaded whenever I walked by, and this plant took care of itself. I sure hope it comes back this spring. If not, I will buy another one as an annual, it was THAT GOOD. Agastache "Tutti Frutti" did very well, making a 3 ft small bush that was always beloved by hummingbirds, butterflies and bees. I would like to find a closer place to put one next year so I can better enjoy the creatures that love it so much. Perhaps as part of a container planting on the patio... Disappointments are Monarda "Jacob Cline" because it won't stand upright. It sprawls sideways, etc and is not the look I had hoped for. Nor did it bloom very well this year. Same story for my Gallardia Goblins in same bed, now they did bloom profusely, but not standing up. Instead they flopped all over the place and were a distraction to me. We'll see if they come back too. Not sure what to use in their places if they don't comeback or perform well enough. I need hot colors for a full sun, dry bed in front of house. Sections needing a 3 ft tall upright grower and sections for about a 2 ft tall upright grower. Suggestions ? Thanks in advance !

Californian (OP) said: "Black Cherry-OK, but not sweet enough for me" Funny how different tomato lovers have different taste. Frankly, I absolutey love the acidity of Black Cherry, and can't pass it w/o taking a handful when out hunting hornworms. Somehow they remind me of my boyhood in New Jersey in the Fifties stopping at the veggie stands for fresh tomatoes on the way home from the shore. Btw, veggies in New Jersey - you bet and I dare say they're terrific, but I digress ..... Our worst tasting diasppointment this year has been two Yellow Pear - mushy and tasteless. No, I didn't intentionally plant them, unfortunately, the nursery (or their supplier) had them mismarked as Lemon Boys. Aah you say, Lemon Boy isn't exactly a big winner in this forum either but it sure has been good to us over the years - prolific, disease resistant and on the acid side, too - yummmmm ..... Another surprise is Kentucky Beefsteak, not prolific but mighty tasty.

I havent watched the show in a few years because I think it does a disservice to the general public and is very unrealistic. These people are eating 1,000-1200 calories a day and exercising 6-8 hours a day. They are at the ranch for around 16 weeks and then I think they are home for 2-3 months before the finale. I did hear Rachel interviewed on tv and she lost 155 lbs in 7 months(which would mean 4 mos at the ranch and 3 at home) ...that's an AVERAGE of 22 lbs. a month. Even Dr. Oz came out and said it is unhealthy to lose at the pace they do....and all his show seems to be about now is the latest weight loss diets/gimmicks. When you see people losing 12,15, 17 lbs in a week and then you get on the scale and see 1 lb, it makes YOU feel like the biggest loser..in that, how come you only lost a lb.? There's no way these people can keep up these routines when they return to their normal lives and are working again so of course they put weight back on. I also read an article a few years ago that what they don't show you is all the injuries they incur because they are pushed so hard from the get-go. You cant take a sedentary 300 lb person and expect them to walk a mile first time out or do 45 minutes at 3.5 on the treadmill, etc. without developing knee, hip and other injuries. I don't find the show inspiring at all because it is so unrealistic.

I think both Mark and Kelly have shown some real growth this season. I believe that Mark learned something when he went home and got to see himself the way others see him. If he's faking all the tears and softness, he deserves an Academy Award. As soon as Kelly weighed in this week and knocked him below the yellow line, he still yelled out a 'good job Kelly'. And trust me, I despised him earlier on. I don't like Roger at all and it doesn't seem like the other contestants or the host think much about him either. Maybe Dan idolized him but the maturity level on the ranch skyrocketed after Dan left and Roger didn't have anyone left buying and selling his fratboy/college football player malarkey. I think he's a bully but since he's always been a candidate to be the BL due to his size, he was given a soft edit. I think they need to reconsider what makes the BL the BL. By going just by percentage, it's unfair to those contestants who just don't have as much to lose as others. That's why I kind of like the gameplay aspect of it (which was way overdone this season) since that's the only chance some of the other contestants have but when it comes down to the final 3 or 4, there's an unfair playing field since the smaller players just can't lose the same percentage of weight and still be, well, alive and well.