Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!eric
From: eric@rtech.UUCP (Eric Lundblad)
Newsgroups: net.garden,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Grass
Message-ID: <558@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 02:32:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.558
Posted: Wed Jul 17 02:32:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 02:28:16 EDT
References: <11461@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.garden:626 net.consumers:2657

> As I walked down the street from the bus stop yesterday, looking at all
> the front lawns on the block, this thought occurred to me:
> 
> 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?
> 

	I always figured that it provided visable proof that the person that
lives at such and such a house works hard and is successful. I mean, if s/he has
a hard to grow plant that still looks good in front of his house then he must
be doing something right, right?

-- 

			Eric Lundblad
		   ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!eric