Pay in installments of $14.49 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 13 - Aug 18
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
Katzenminze - Nepeta 'Six Hills Giant' - ↕10-25cm - Ø9cm 20 StückNepeta Faasseni 'Six Hills Giant' Der riesige Katzenminzenliebling fr Duft, Bltenglanz & Bienen! Nepeta faassenii 'Six Hills Giant' Bienenweide, ist eine der beliebtesten, grten & prchtigsten Sorten der Katzenminze sie begeistert mit wolkenartigen, lavendelblauen Blten, herrlichem Duft und einem buschig berhngenden Wuchs. Diese Staude mit ihren langen violettblauen Bltenrispen, ist ber Monate ein Dauerblher, pflegeleicht, trockenheitsresistent & ein
🌿🪻🐱Nepeta Faasseni 'Six Hills Giant' – Der riesige Katzenminzenliebling für Duft, Blütenglanz & Bienen!🍃🩶🌞🐝🦋🪴
Nepeta faassenii 'Six Hills Giant' Bienenweide, ist eine der beliebtesten, größten & prächtigsten Sorten der Katzenminze – sie begeistert mit wolkenartigen, lavendelblauen Blüten, herrlichem Duft und einem buschig überhängenden Wuchs. Diese Staude mit ihren langen violettblauen Blütenrispen, ist über Monate ein Dauerblüher, pflegeleicht, trockenheitsresistent & ein Magnet für Bienen, Hummeln und Schmetterlinge. Ideal für Beetränder, Naturgärten, Bauerngärten & sonnige Pflanzstreifen – der sanfte Riese unter den Bienenpflanzen! 🐝💜🌞
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.3 ★★★★★
Based on 10 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 2
Not sour
Not really sour at all so it’s a pretty disappointing candy.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 6, 2026
★★★★★ 5
Sugar free
Tastes great
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 21, 2026
★★★★★ 5
Dude, it's not just a horror novel
Format: Paperback
This is to the previous reviewer (C. Scanlan). If this is just a horror novel, it failed miserably. It is not exactly a blood ’n gore thriller. Compared to Stephen King, it is pretty tame.
What puts the horror in this book is that it is social commentary. Mary Shelly is not just trying to scare us. It is more than just a “Friday the 13th” movie. Mary Shelly is delivering a message. It seems that everyone understands this except this reviewer. There have been several different interpretations of the novel (see [...] for 10 different meanings of the novel). ICE takes the interpretation that Shelly is saying science can go too far. This is a perfectly valid interpretation. One can disagree with this interpretation but let’s not resort to name calling and personal attacks – that those who hold such an interpretation are doing a “low level attempt to cash in on home schooling Christian paranoia and fear of health care” or believe that “AIDS [is] the fruit of sin”. My wife and I are Catholic parents and we sent our children to public schools
He mocks the idea of a secular fundamentalist but then demonstrates what that is. A religious fundamentalist sees anyone who disagrees with him as being of the devil. A secular fundamentalist sees anyone who disagrees with him as guilty of “brainwashing” others. In both cases, true dialogue is impossible.
Another thing that a fundamentalist does is that he sees things in opposite extremes. If you are warning of the dangers of trusting too much in science then you must be against science. There is no middle ground for the fundamentalist. If you see that science can sometimes go too far then that means you are against health care. But this is a non-sequitur.
Nielson writes “Frankenstein’s placing of the creation of life within the scientific method first destroys the unrepeatability and systematically eliminates the other elements [of hope, love, beauty, creativity and sacrifice]”. Nielson is not criticizing the scientific method in total. He is only criticizing it in the creation of life. The reviewer writes “He thereby easily and explicitly condemns the whole process and philosophy of the scientific method”. But Nielson is not condemning the whole process of the scientific method. He is only condemning it in the creation of life.
The reviewer then mocks the credentials of the critics in the book - “So who are these essayists superior to Norton's and Oxfords and free of deconstructionist feminist secular fundamentalism, experts so august Ignatius should want them mentioned on their product page yet are nowhere to be seen?” But this game can be played both ways. What are the credentials of this reviewer? Is this reviewer so august as to challenge these essayists? Again, this is merely an ad-hominem attack. I really do not care who has the best credentials. What matters is who makes sense. Sometimes intellectuals can make the dumbest claims. Read Paul Johnson’s book, “Intellectuals” (http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421862888&sr=8-1&keywords=intellectuals). He compares the essayists unfavorably to “good solid Roman Catholic moral theology” from the likes of Richard A. McCormick S.J., who “is the renowned leader of Roman Catholic Moral Theology in the field of bioethics in the USA.” He overlooks the fact that A. McCormick S.J. has dissented from teachings of the Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI over contraception. The “renowned leader” in the Catholic Church in morality is first and foremost the pope. Since Richard A. McCormick has contradicted the popes, he cannot be a good solid Catholic theologian.
Mary Shelly lived right after the Enlightenment – man is the measure of all things. She lived at a time when people believed that science will solve all our problems. This is called scientism. ICE contends that Shelly is saying that we may be expecting too much from science. It does not mean that Shelly was saying that we should reject science. And it does not mean that Shelly believes that we should go back to the Catholic faith. In fact, ICE acknowledges that Shelly was an anti-Catholic. But the Church believes that the kernel of truth can be found in others, even in anti-Catholics. This is part of the Catholic tradition. St Augustine learned from Plato and St Aquinas learned from Aristotle. ICE would take that kernel of truth and expound that with the fullness of the Catholic faith.
You may disagree with the Catholic faith, or with ICE looking at Shelly’s book from a Catholic perspective. But this is at least as a legitimate an interpretation as any other. In fact, this interpretation seems closer to the truth than the others. This interpretation is the traditional interpretation, which means that it goes back further to Shelly’s time than the modern interpretations, and is therefore less likely to be in error.
BTW, the reviewer wrote that “Opus Dei right wing publishing (or reprint) house is selling this novel is to milk the home school market and to support its own bizarre bio-ethical ideology”. This is factually wrong. The company that publishes Opus Dei’s books is Sceptre. But the publisher of ICE is Ignatius Press.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 22, 2015
★★★★★ 5
Good experience
Format: Paperback
It was all good.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 24, 2025
★★★★★ 4
Love the Edition and Footnotes; Don't need the Cultural Criticisms
Format: Paperback
The layout of the book and the footnotes are each great. What mars the book, unfortunately, is the editor's need to make simplistic statements about cultural elements. Several times, for example, he addresses "feminism," even using the term "Franken-feminists" in a puerile manner at one point. As too many of these conservative Catholics do, he simplifies and comments about modern culture without nuance. In this case, it is simply unprofessional and inaccurate (i) to not capture the myriad differences in feminist thought (many of which he and his readers would accept) and (ii) thereby to make all feminists the same (e.g,, assuming the feminists of the 1970's are the same as today's.) This is all unfortunate because when he is just addressing the literary elements of the book, his comments are wonderful and helpful to the reader.
Any reader should know that this presentation will be tilted in an unsophisticated and simplistic way toward a traditional Catholic view (a view that can indeed be defended well while still being careful and charitable to critics). With that caveat, he (or she) should still buy it and garner a good edition of the text.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 12, 2024