ditnc - yes, I have always overplanted maters because I never really get good crops. But it was kinda getting outta hand. This year may be my 'turn around' year. Yes, a single hole in the PCs. I would stack up 5-6 cups and use a 3/8" drill bit through the middle of the bottoms. I used to use little 4" plastic flower pots but I'm convinced that the deeper 16oz party cups allowed for much better root development. This year I used the PCs not only for the maters, but all my vegetable and flower seedlings too. The more substantial root mass has reduced transplant shock to zero this season. Kris

Is this your first trip to Paris and or London? If you have three weeks, I would certainly plan to do more than Paris, especially if I had not been to Europe before and was not a frequent traveller ... you can do a lot comfortably in three weeks. Let me start off by saying though, I really would not go to Paris in April. My first trip as a "grown up" was April in Paris, and I just assumed it was a good time ago (isn't there a famous song?). The song is probably just because the guy needed two syllables. April in Paris is usually cold and rainy. I have been there a dozen times on business and 4 times for pleasure, and I much prefer June or September. I totally understand the spring break timing. I am confronted with that every year too ... it seems you either go skiiing, go to the beach, or you have to go somewhere off season. Drives me crazy. But I truly believe April is suboptimal, and I had to say that upfront. One of the best things about Paris is just strolling about, and it is much nicer if it is green and pleasant. If this is a once in a lifetime trip, I'd do it in June. One of my favorite places in the world is the Bagatelle, a small tulip garden in the Bois du Bologne. In April it will be barren. So will Giverny, a great day trip to Monet's home. Okay so I have said my piece on that and will desist! The Georges V on the right bank is steps from the Arc de Triomphe and Champs Elyssees. Over the years it had been flagged as a few different brands, but it is currently a Four Seasons. I tended to stay there on business, and while it is excellent, it is not my first choice for leisure. I don't really like the Champs Elysee ... it has large, modern stores on that section .. and I would much rather be based on the left bank for leisure. My fave is La Lutetia, but I just looked it up and it is closed for renovations. I also like the Hotel Montalambert and Relais Christine, both left bank. Do note that both cities are very pricey as I am sure you know. Moreover, unlike American brands, rooms are typically very very small and often cannot accommodate a third person. Lastly, try to be very specific about the actual room and get photos. Many hotels are in older buildings and the rooms are anything but cookie cutter. One person can have a fabulous charming room and the other a dump. But in my mind it feels much more Parisian to stay in an old building! So keep that in mind when looking into alternates. As far as an itinerary, I would try to take the full three weeks so as to maximize the bang for your buck on flying over there. BTW I just read about a new all business class airline into Paris that, for business class, is quite reasonable. If you don't want to spring for a flat bed seat, fly during the day, land at night, and get right on the local schedule. Avoid caffeine, drink lots of water, get sun and exercise and you won't have any jet lag. I would consider flying into London (frankly between Gatwick and LHR there are so many flights and carriers that you can usually get the best deals). I would consider excursions to Stonehenge and Bath. Then I'd take the Chunnel to Paris. No one needs to tell you what to see in Paris! Outside of Paris I'd consider train trips to Versailles of course, and maybe to Chartres to see the famous cathedral and have dinner. If you are going a full three weeks, I might throw in Belgium and do an open jaw, flying into one city and out of a different one. I like the Hop on Hop off buses, tacky though they are, because they give you a quick lay of the the land. I usually research the "36 hours in" or "three perfect days in" articles in advance, to get ideas about what Id like to do. These are from the NY Times and periodicals so more timely than guidebooks.

Funny you should ask, its both! I caught squirrels during the day burying nuts, and a few nights I couldn't sleep caught skunks and racoons. Skunks left about 15-20 holes the other night. I accidentally dug up (scalped) a section of old grass and mostly moss along the side of the house, not where I planted, and saw grubs. I dropped Bayer 24 hour killer before the rain came. Only problem I have now is mower wheel tracks in my new grass out back. I thought my grass was dry, and some blades were 5 inches it needed first cut, but I left horrific tracks matted down. I tried to gently stand them upright (which seemed to work well ) but fear I may have damaged it :(

People who tell you to keep any particular plant rootbound are simply repeating what they heard or read somewhere, because they certainly couldn't have reasoned themselves into that position. IF one assumes a person is using a very water-retentive soil and can't seem to control how much water the plant is getting, then it might be better for the plant to be grown tight so it uses the water in the root mass faster and in doing so eases the limitations imposed by saturated soil. With that scenario, what's REALLY occurring is, the grower is deciding which of 2 evils is preferential by trading the limitations imposed by root congestion for the limitations imposed by over-watering. Obviously repotting so roots have room to run and changing to a soil that doesn't burden the grower with worry over soil saturation offers MUCH more potential for a happy plant because it doesn't have to deal with either set of limitations - root congestion or a soggy home for roots. Whenever I hear the notion voiced that a plant likes to be grown rootbound, I know the source of the advice either 'doesn't get it' or doesn't care enough about who reads the advice to qualify it, because it should never be given w/o qualifications. and even then there is little justification for it OTHER than in some cases it can force a greater profusion of blooms in conspicuously flowering plants. Al