"Gewiss! Seguro! Oui!" or as Curly of the Three Stooges would say "Why Soitenly!" You don't need blame to face a problem. You just say "Hey, that's a problem. Let's see now ... how can we fix that?" Let me throw a big word out there that I learned a long time ago ... Tautology This word has a lot to do with repetition and the dictionary will tell you that the nature of the repetition is needless or useless. How does it apply to this discussion? Well on the face of it, I would have you know that once you have encountered a problem, it is indeed useless to go and repeat the same encounter with the problem. In my own mind, I relate it to the more auto-actualization or reactive nature of rational beings like humans. We learn to drive a car and it comes naturally. After we master it, we no longer devote any mental energy to it. If there is a problem with the way we drive an automobile, we no longer think about it or devote any rational mental resources to it. We just go about it by rote. But in fact, there were problems with driving automobiles all through its history. And to get us all to change, we had to be hit in the face with a shovel, changing laws, taxes on fuels and finally, hybrids and alternative fuels. But before we are forced to change, we cling to the tautological repetition of the problem. In immediate terms, it is a less expensive solution in terms of brain power; We refuse to expend any energy on the problem, unless forced to. So, the long term problem escapes solution, if left to ourselves as individuals. Thankfully, there are enough of us that some of us see the train coming, step off the tracks and start yelling at everyone else on that tracks that the train is coming. Some folks have described this tautological nature of mankind as 'The Frog in The Frying Pan'. The frog is at first comfortable sitting in the frying pan. As the heat is turned up ever so slowly, the frog doesn't budge. It doesn't want to make the effort to analyze the problem and eventually, we have a frog that 1) leaps out of the frying pan with a burned underside and feet or 2) a fried frog. Our nature then can be very reactive and much less disciplined, especially if we feel that the change threatens us - greater expenses or some associated cost, having to learn something new, etc.. We react first and learn later ( if at all ). Many people in fact, fear change for reasons such as these. Fewer thrive on it. So, the tautological nature of humanity, based on the way the human brain operates by rote as a means of keeping rational energy expenses low, combined with fear of change ... makes people behave in cyclic or repetitive ways which most of the time is not a problem, even if the repetition is useless. But sometimes, it traps us into a cycle that is self destructive. A person who understands what I have just said then, will realize that the human mind can both, fall into the trap of potentially destructive tautological functioning, but also, that the human mind can be trained. They then set about disciplining themselves, so that when they face a problem, they avoid defensiveness and the tendency to avoid expending rational energy and acceptance of rote repetition. They train themselves instead to react by recognizing that the problem may possibly be real and further, to trigger the expediture in rational energy to analyze it. By doing so, they evolve solutions and either adapt to change by changing their ways or auto-effect change, something most folks are not often capable of. They are the first to step off the tracks in the face of an approaching train and warn the others. 'Thinking outside the box' is therefore a bit different than what you may have always accepted it to mean. Many people don't even conceptualize that the box has an inside and an outside. I prefer not to be a frog in a frying pan. But in reality, sometimes even I do not avoid it. And I have for a long time now, practiced disciplining my mind to react by expending the rational energy, hopefully, not needlessly. BTW: Crisis management is well, tautology in action, after the shovel hits someone in the face. :) Hmmm. I suppose I can be long-winded and wordy at times. People have told me that. Luckily, flapping ones lips doesn't prevent ones feet from letting them step off the railroad tracks.

Thanks guys. You sure know how to make this new guy feel great. I just have to make sure my ego doesn't inflate too big with all your kind words. Very interesting observation Seil. It is good to know that the reverse could happen as well. You know what Meredith, I wish I had the kind of resilience that you have when planning garden colours. I guess I never really went for the "designer" look. I am sort of the cottage garden kinda guy. I want as many colours as possible. I admit that predominantly most of my roses are pink, yellow, apricot and red. I am trying to get as much as different colours as possible. I find it hard to stick with a limited pallet.

Also people need to know more about the geography and climate conditions of where the plants orginate. I grow peonies and for years I have been telling people to plant in light shade vs. the full sun that "experts' state is needed. Now that there has been more trips to where many of the peonies have originated and looking at the pictures many are in forest,short tree plains, or even tucking themselves under bushes. Recomendations for some plants are changing. I have for a long time wanted to do away with zones because they only reflect temperature ranges and not real growth situations. I am a person that believes the climate is changing, to what I am not certain, but too many people are trying to maintain as is and not realizing how they garden may not be best for the area as it is now. Perhaps for the ones like myself Gardenweb could start a new forum for gardening changes so people could tell of the changes they see and what they are doing to cope.

Love - You said "He said fine, he would have to leave work early, didn't want to "inconvenience me" yada yada." and "I asked him what made him say that and he just said "well, I can't leave work early today." WOW. So I guess in his MAN MIND that is his way of acknowleding that I wouldn't do it." The way I see it is this was his way of making you feel guilty for being a SAHM, but unwilling to help him out with his kid. Don't give in!!!! Be strong in that HE needs to do what HE needs to do for HIS kid, and it wouldn't have to be this way if the (in the words of Sweeby) bat-sh*t crazy b*tch hadn't come in your home and punched you. Pseudo said "....I guess my point was if he puts BM before you ... if you had a child with him where would he draw the line ...." This is totally what I have been thinking for a few months now, but could never get the courage up to say anything. Where will he draw the line? Your DD has already been subjected to so much from this woman, and he's not even her father! How much would he put a child of his own through? Example: my friend has a DD with her DH who has 2 DDs with a crazy BM. The DH is a SAHD to the little one (DD with my friend) and would take her with him to pick up the other DDs on his weekend. It became a habit that the BM wouldn't be home at p/u time and wouldn't answer her phone. He would wait around for them to return (afraid that if he left he wouldn't get to see his DDs). One time, the little DD was in the car and carseat for 4 hours while he tried to track them down and waited for them. 4 hours! My friend finally said "You can wait around for 4 hours if you want, but you will not have MY daughter sitting in a carseat for 4 hours while you sit in your car outside their home." Basically, he had no problems putting BM ahead of his new DD. Remember...the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You just have to start squeaking louder than her. Jupiter said "I think that they need to see their ex's as good mothers (even when they clearly are not) maybe to somehow reassure themselves for when they are with her." So, so, so, true. My DH knows BM is a back-stabbing liar. But then he says stuff like "well, BM says it's SD's decision and she asks her all the time if she wants to visit". So why would he believe that one statement when he's caught her in so may lies before? The only thing that makes sense is he NEEDS to believe she's a good mother. Jupiter also said "I too run into arguments where he lets her slide on things that he wouldn't with me..I try to give him the example that if it was anyone else in his life he would have told them to go to h#$% because normally in life you don't do favors for people who don't do for you let alone someone who puts him down as a father..." and Love said "But it just totally goes against DH's overall nature, which is so frustrating." This is the issue. Which personality is the REAL one? I have this same problem with DH and I'm starting to think the way he is with HER is his personality when he's vulnerable and that scares the crap out of me because I guess I rarely ever see him vulnerable. I agree with FD. When I am flexible and accommodating with X, it is usually in the best interest of DS, and I do the work. I rarely (if ever) ask DH to do anything for DS, although he would be willing, because I feel like DS is my sole responsibility since I am the parent.