No point in having a conversation with someone who has an agenda which obviates any need to consider facts. Since you so obviously know so much about the state of Eucalytptus species infestation in the USA, which is in your view reason enough to avoid planting any Australian plant elsewhere than Australia because of the grave impacts on our local ecology, I will defer to your expertise and greater wisdom. Oh, by the way, did you neglect to register that I did mention the very species of Eucalyptus, both E. camaldulensis and E. globulus as being amongst the few that have weedy potential here in California? As to any Eucalyptus species ever having a chance in hell of becoming an escaped weed in someplace like Ohio, what is your supporting evidence beyond a Wikipedia citation? As to presuming that I have no experience with conserving native habitats or the issue of escaped exotics in the wild, you form this conclusion on the basis of what, exactly? Yet you continue to sidestep the very real issue of potential issue of gene pool pollution by mixing of selected "native" cultivars amongst local gene pools, and act as if this is a non-issue to consider. If you are going to walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, then "native" species should only be collected within their naturally occurring habitat for revegetation purposes, rather than planting out man selected cultivars from other parts of the plant's range, and often selected for their ornamental characteristics rather than those qualities that make them a good fit for their particular geographic range. As well, you failed to address the point I made about how planting out natives in already urbanized settings can not begin to replicate a fully functioning natural environment, the closest you can come is a facsimile, the original diversity of species is impossible to fully replicate. Therefore, as I stated before, it is more important, as well as more useful for the conservation of species diversity, to place more emphasis on preserving intact environments that remain, rather than play at recreating what was, in urban settings which have changed the hydrology, soil structures, sun and shade, etc, etc. Certainly no harm in promoting "native" plants for use in gardens, but to insist that only natives should be used is no more or less valid than other approaches. The only way you would actually convince me otherwise is if you did your homework, got off your soapbox, and addressed the points I raised in a logical manner, rather than resorting to bullying and name calling. I suppose that we also differ philosophically on the point of gardening and cultivating plants in general. I see landscape design as encompassing various methods with varied purposes. To the point that use of exotics does no harm to the surrounding "wild" landscape, what is wrong with appreciating plants much as an artist uses various paint colors, having a diverse palette to create beautiful effects. If...

Yes indeed Michael. Good point, thanks. I use the word as in 'organic chemistry'. 'Organic' being a word coming from greek, I'm confused sometimes about its everyday use in english. In greek (and in other languages I believe) we use another greek word (of course..) 'biological' for this. The use of either word is problematic (another greek word lol) in my view. Not all 'organic' chemicals (yet another..) are supposed to be a no-no for organic growing and vice versa (this comes from latin though). PS1 To add insult to injury, in the case of fertilizers the matter is reversed. Chemically organic ones are 'good' for organic growing while inorganic ones may be considered 'bad' regardless of the fact that plants like to eat mainly inorganic ingredients... What is OK for organic growing and what not is a matter of debate, confusion and as much of science as of pre- and misconceptions*. *PS2. In some quarters for example, mined mineral fertilisers (inorganic compounds) are supposedly OK while the same chemical, if manufactured, is disallowed (the difference being the supposedly environmentally hazardous production process). Go figure.

If it is cupping, it looks pretty slight to me. Cupping--unless it's evident shortly after installation--is usually the result of moisture imbalances which are due to environmental conditions outside the contractor's control. Cupping is more evident the wider the flooring width which is why I recommend engineered hardwood for widths greater than 3" As a point of calibration, the performance standard published in NAHB's Residential Construction Performance Guidelines for Professional Builders and Remodelers is: "Cupping or crowning in hardwood floor boards will not exceed 1 /16 inch in height in a 3-inch maximum span measured perpendicular to the long axis of the board. Cupping or crowning appearing after installation may result from fluctuations in the moisture conditions in the house, causing a noticeable curvature in the face of the floor boards. Cupping or crowning caused by exposure to moisture beyond the contractor’s control is not the contractor’s responsibility." If the OP wants to minimize cupping, they'll need to control the relative humidity in the living space as well as the space below the floor. If it's a basement or crawl space, moisture controls need to be in place and some amount of conditioning may be required.

@mdln what does it matter if they're homeless or not. It's the contractor's responsibility to manage their crew and that includes instructing the crew not to sleep or use the client's home for their use without permission. The homeowner shouldn't get involved in the crew members' situation; that is solely the contractor's purview. Even if the crew member was homeless the homeowner is not responsible to house them on their premises. 20 years non-profit in homelessness and affordable homeownership; I've seen it all. I've worked with my heart on my sleeve and I've seen every life situation. Please, no do not be 'of good heart' and allow someone working for you to 'live' on your property. It's a conflict of interest and will not turn out the way you intend.