Token, You put in the operative word : YET. I ordered I haven't order from them since early 2007. Too many issues with my order. Customer service was scripted. In today's economy, that is not good. Quality items, decent prices and good customer service go along way. That is why I order from Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds. Good prices, very generous amount of seeds, freebies and reasonable shipping prices and times.

I always thought pike had too many stores. This town is extremely sprawing but even "family-owned" chain garden centers that are prominent in other large metros only have maybe 3 locations. Pike has 17! Just in the atlanta area. To make matters worse, if you ask me (not an actual fact) their customer base would appear to be... not growing that fast, as more and more people move into zero lot line, cluster homes, town homes etc and don't have any where to grow anything. Their product offering hasn't been adjusted to offer these customers much, if anything, for the smaller lots. They should be going after these customers with free workshops and plants to solve problems they have with the small garden. And also appealing to a younger crowd.

As I recall, Bestlawn made some additional comments. I don't see any now, do you? Administration has an eraser ... which they use on occasion ... not getting involved with anything remotely resembling "censorship", you understand. I've heard that Bestlawn has been banned. She may disagree with folks from time to time, and I think that it's fair to say that sometimes I've felt her replies to be couched in less diplomatic language then I felt comfortable with, but I do believe that she could disagree without being disagreeable. Sometimes she is (was) rather good at keeping the discussion on track and I felt at times was something of an antidote for some unusual (strange?) opinions that had been expressed. I think that sometimes it would be well if a few participants here were to back off a bit, disengage themselves some from their opinion and not feel personally insulted when someone disagrees with them ... to develop a bit thicker skin. I've written to admin to ask that her ban be lifted. ole joyful

Okay, now that we've established that legislators make laws, the judicial system interprets and applies law to specific situations, and a rigorous appeals process is in place for those who don't like judges' rulings, I thought it might be interesting to learn a bit more about the treatment of mortgage debt in Chapter 13. I found this analysis of the issue on Calculated Risk. Who knew that Ch. 13 bankruptcy laws allow judges to modify all other secured debt...just not mortgages on principal residences. And up until 1978, the court could modify mortgages on principal residences? Here's an excerpt from Tanta over at Calculated Risk. "Here's the issue, in a nutshell. Until the 2005 bankruptcy reform, insolvent homeowners could choose Chapter 7 (liquidation) or Chapter 13 (repayment plan) bankruptcy. After the reform bill, for practical purposes most homeowners are limited to Chapter 13. Chapter 7 filings usually do not result in borrowers keeping their homes, although they can (if the borrower reaffirms the mortgage debt, the court accepts the reaffirmation, and the borrower has the financial capacity to continue to make mortgage payments). In most cases, the BK stay is lifted and the loan is foreclosed. You can think of Chapter 13 as itself a kind of loan modification: the court establishes a 3-5 year repayment plan for all the borrower's debts, with the unpaid remainder discharged at the end of the repayment plan period. In Chapter 13, the debtor can keep a mortgaged home, as long as he continues to make mortgage payments throughout the plan period, and makes up any past-due amounts (including fees) during the repayment period as determined by the repayment plan. If the borrower does not or cannot continue to pay the mortgage, the stay is lifted and the lender can foreclose. However, secured debts can be restructured or modified in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and secured creditors, except the mortgage lender on a principal residence, can be subject to what is called a "cram down." This happens when the amount of the debt is greater than the value of the collateral securing it; the court reduces the value of the secured debt to the market value of the collateral, with the remainder being treated as unsecured (and subject to the same repayment plan/discharge terms as any other unsecured debt). The prohibition of court-ordered modifications for mortgages on principal residences was created in 1978; between 1978 and 1993 most bankruptcy courts interpreted the law to mean that while interest-rate reduction or term-extension modifications were not allowed, home mortgages could still be crammed down. In 1993, with Nobleman v. American Savings Bank, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on modifications of principal-residence mortgage loans also included cram downs. The result is that borrowers who are upside down and who have toxic, high-rate mortgages are simply, in practical terms, unable to maintain their homes in Chapter 13." Here is a link that might be useful: Calculated Risk