Canmanula, before I got rid of all my roses except Ragged Robin - the only rose I can stand - I made what you call "epic process" into a way of life. Whenever the mood would take me, and take me it did every so often, I'd dig up this or that rose for moving to a new spot or for repotting on its way to a new home. In less than 2 years RR got moved more than half a dozen times, including in the sizzling Israeli July-August. So have several Icebergs, which were as tall as myself: slightly more than 5 feet. 2 Gartendirektor Otto Linn, which had the temerity of developing an over 6-foot diameter were blithely pruned, unceremoniously pulled out and dumped in pots, where they lost no time in leafing out again before going to a more deserving gardener than myself. Roses are very difficult to kill. So don't leave your beloved Moyesii behind. I looked it up on HMF a minute ago and it's just my kind of rose, too. What's 8 feet? Chop off its head and some of its feet and dump it in a pot. If my experience is anything to go by, roses start singing for their supper once they find themselves in a pot. Cruelty pays! Go for it! Good luck with your new place!

Beng, While Knuttle seems to have missed the "meaning" (whatever it is) of the picture, the comment about the picture (by itself) not supporting any conclusion is right on target. Let's say that this thread was from someone who's home had just been washed away by a flood. The original poster, in this scenario, came here to tell us about a trend of floods wiping out whole communities. Now, you come along and post a picture of a guy who is forced to live with only 10 ounce of water per day, another guy who is forced to live with only 20 ounces, one with only 40 ounces, and the final with 80 ounces of water per day. I guess you would consider the picture relevant to the conversation? Would you find it somehow "enjoyable"? And finally, would you consider the picture "a scientific fact"? Well this scenario has a lot in common with your posts above. I don't know if you don't fully understand the topic of this thread or meant the picture to be some political cheap-shot, but your picture doesn't add anything of relevance to the topic. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to fool the unsuspecting laymen into believing that there is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide levels and plant health without limits and without caveats. It certainly doesn't take into consideration the numerous other factors involved. Just as people refused (and some still do to this day) to believe that the Earth isn't flat, there are those that seem to want to push the idea that pollution has no consequences. What's really shameful is that many of the large energy companies, with a huge interest in hiding the reality, put out the idea that pollution has no consequences and the foolish buy into the idea wholeheartedly. We are fouling our own bed (as someone wrote above) and the pitiful thing about it is that some among us think it's entertaining or good for us.

This is indeed sad. And startlingly common. We are losing so many old family businesses to our modern mindset. I see a great deal of this in my classroom, with high schoolers. It worries me; we aren’t content to be a part of something with history and longevity, but want to express our uniqueness as individuals more than we want to honor the past. It used to be that you took great pride in assuming the business your family built from sweat and tears, but now so many young people look at these businesses with disdain, and don’t have an appreciation for what it means to have kept a business alive for so long.

Title: " The Thousand-Year Rose, the tough rose that survived a World War 2 bombing" https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/42770/20191129/top-5-oldest-living-creatures-in-the-world.htm