Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.garden,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Grass
Message-ID: <3975@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 10:53:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.3975
Posted: Thu Jul 11 10:53:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:51:20 EDT
References: <11461@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.garden:588 net.consumers:2570

> Grass is *terrible* stuff, unless you can eat it. It needs mowing,
> watering, de-weeding, etc., or it turns into a real mess. So why on
> earth does every house have a front lawn and a back yard that are full
> of *grass*? Why haven't we long ago realized that grass is the wrong
> stuff to put around our houses, and chosen instead some nice
> low-growing, no-maintenance ground cover that will force out weeds on
> its own and let people enjoy their little plots of land instead of
> having to slave over them to keep them looking "nice", by an arbitrary
> social standard?

Among the possible reasons, I believe this one:

> 2) There really is *no* other plant variety/species/type other than
> grass that will fit the characteristics needed.

I can think of a few types of ground cover that need less maintenance
than grass, but none of them are particularly nice to walk on.
I'm eager to be proved wrong.