Much like my friend from Oklahoma, I see no brawl either just some folks sharing their differing opinions and that is a good thing. I have to admit that I was hoping that some of the "Green Party" folks would eventually show up. Fulfilling my wishes, they did. A couple earnest people have questioned the facts that I selectively chose from "right-leaning sources". Of course, true to form, they selected only "facts" from "left-leaning sources". To really add muster to the point I am attempting to make, we even got to witness an element from the whacko-fringe, who only registered on this forum that very day to spew his "facts" and brand me a coward. I have always felt this element continues (sadly) to inflict harmful impact to the credibility of the ecology movement as a whole. Facts what exactly are facts? I am not really sure that I can say with any amount of certitude. Both sides of almost any issue can banter back and forth all day long, citing sources that deduce quantities of data into diametrically opposed conclusions. As the old joke goes, told in my first session of a statistical analysis class in 1969 at Iowa State University: Question: What do the statistics say? Answer: What do you want them to say? Any more, I am very dubious about forming an opinion based upon "facts" until I know the agenda of the one promoting that selective set of "facts". One of our participants has now encouraged us to view a movie with a collection of "facts" provided by a politician who at one time claimed to personally invent the Internet. This guy has lived a life filled with agendas. Facts? Hmmm Not having even done so, I could probably go to a right-leaning source (say, perhaps Rush Limbaughs website) that would present another collection of facts to refute everything the movie contends. Unfortunately, ecology awareness (choose your own preferred term) has become hopelessly ensnarled in politics. It seems like every word used is defined differently, depending upon who is doing the using. Bill Clinton illustrated this technique well when he famously said: "It depends upon what the definition of "is", is." If you take the example of my "fact" about there being more trees today than when the country first began. Firstly, the numbers are extrapolated estimates from both dates. If you pay careful attention to the typical phrasing of the data (Can any estimate truly be considered data?), the left likes to use the term, "cover". More in: "Statistics clearly show that there was X percentage more forest cover in the 1700s than at present." On the other hand, the right seems to prefer the term, "number of trees". How exactly do the terms, "forest cover" and "number of trees" directly equate? Do they really mean the same thing or, are both sides trying to promote their chosen agenda? I suspect BOTH sides are fudging a bit. However, I dont think either side is using words that are not technically truthful. More to the point: Lets say you and I have a 1 acre pot of land side by side. On your ground, you have a huge, 100 year-old bur oak tree growing on a savanna. On my identical plot, I have just planted 200 oak saplings. Without question, it would be a true statement that your single tree provides many, many times more cover than my saplings. However, it is equally true that I have 200 times as many trees on my ground than you do on yours. Does it make sense that we now begin arguing over who is more environmentally conscious than the other? I have grown weary of the exaggerations of both sides. I have grown weary of the name calling. I have grown weary of the smarmy politics. I have grown weary of activists (on both sides) telling me what I should either do and/or believe. I have grown weary of being told "the sky is falling" when I can look around and see the many improvements that have happened in my lifetime. (Yes, there is still a lot left to do.) I have grown weary seeing the good, hard work by dedicated, environmentally concerned folks suffering serious, repetitive setbacks to their cause at the hands (or mouth) of a few whackos. What I would now most like this thread to do is move beyond the politics and return to discussing what precipitated this thread at the onset: People like our friend, NYwoodsman, who feels landscape design has nothing to offer him and further believes landscaping issues fail to adequately embrace nature. His arguments are not totally without merit for a certain segment of society. Personally, I think it is possible to do both. I even suggested one example for him with an enhanced incorporation of spring ephemerals into his woodland. In an essentially treeless paradigm of the prairie, I see far too much opportunity squandered by both "the green crowd" and landscape professionals. It seems to me that by an unconsciously self-imposed sequestration, both "sides" remain blind to the opportunity afforded by mutual cooperation. Is anyone else interested in exploring this? IronBelly

When a marriage is in "trouble" and there is bickering and arguing going on between the parties, then there is still hope. The arguments occur because one or both parties still feel something for each other and want to fix what is wrong. It may not be the right way to go about it but the desire is still there. Many couples argue and fight and continue to stay connected. Perhaps it is their style but not a healthy one. The warning sign that your spouse is detaching and disengaging from you is when the arguments about your issues stop. When that happens it basically means that your spouse has given up. Men often times lack insight and think that just because their wife stopped beating the dead horse that everything is now fine and dandy. Not very bright women might think the same thing as well. When the spouse gives up and their personal problems which were the fuel for all the prior arguments do not resolve and never addressed in any sort of emotionally intelligent way then the marriage becomes at risk for divorce and/or infidelity. People who grew up in dysfunctional homes and that can mean anything from violence, emotional/physical abuse, yelling and screaming, unkindness, etc, do not learn the right way to treat themselves and others. They carry that baggage into all aspects of life later on including their marriages. They have been hurt by it and try to control their spouses in order to avoid further hurt. They do not trust and don't feeling deserving of it either. Men who grew up in homes where their father philandered feel that it is normal to cheat. Their family of root is their paradigm. Women who lost their fathers to affairs, can also repeat the cycle by tempting married men. Perhaps with the vindictive desire to get back at their fathers and destroy marriages. I think that as a result they feel damaged and dirty and feel everyone is the same as they are so why bother? Obviously, that is not a pleasant way to feel. Constantly on alert. Always measuring yourself from an outside ruler that is constantly changing. No internal mechanism upon which to judge. No wonder they cheat and argue and fight. Their emotions cause them to trip over their intelligence. Doomed to live an unhappy and defeated life! Actually, we are all at risk when we tie the knot. It is a crap shoot. You really have to know what you are getting into when you get married and being "in love" clowds our minds when we make our choices. That's just life.

Now that I see the name and a pic of it from the internet, yes, it is Thalictrum. I believe I posted this elsewhere. Sorry about that.... Meanwhile, here is what the bud looks like: and one more futile attempt at a picture of one in the shade:

Canina hasn't really been used as a root stock in the uk for a long time. It is possible that it was rootstock, one of the gardens down the road from me has standard roses on a thorny rootstock, (I can tell because I wince at the suckers everytime I walk past the house!) but more likely it's a birdsown wildling - I have one growing up through a rhododendron, and I like the effect, so it stays. Given that you say it's got ambitions to colonise the path already, I suspect that might be a checkmark in the remove column, given the increased light, food, water that comes with you actively tending the garden, it's likely to get more and more octopus-y as time goes on.