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.