Nick Maclaren wrote:
Very few are allergic to bees.

Maybe, but not pain.

John wrote:
Ok,
You all win. I'll keep the daisies. It wasn't actually my idea anyway
to get rid of them but my sister's who keeps saying "You have a
lovely big garden, but you will have to do something about all these
daisies" so now i know that what she really means is she jealous and
i was prepared to listen to her because i know nothing about gardens.
Thank God i found this Newsgroup.

Thanks,

John

Of course if you keep the daisies is it what you want. Having been a townie
for so long you probably have an idea of what you want a garden to be. Keep
the daisies by all means but only if it fits in with what you want.

In article , John
writes
Ok,
You all win. I'll keep the daisies. It wasn't actually my idea anyway to get
rid of them but my sister's who keeps saying "You have a lovely big garden,
but you will have to do something about all these daisies" so now i know
that what she really means is she jealous and i was prepared to listen to
her because i know nothing about gardens. Thank God i found this Newsgroup.

Good for you John - gardening is an opportunity to do your own thing and
not be bound by what other people think you should do. Our lawn contains
anything which will survive regular mowing, i.e. mostly grass but also
plenty of daisies, buttercups, clover, moss (at times) and a host of
interesting wildflowers according to season. It provides an area for
family recreation and relaxation and it is always a joy to behold.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article ,
"ned" writes:
|
| Hey, don't give in so easily!
| It's your lawn. If you want it daisy free, then you have it daisy
| free.

Fine, but it's his sister that does.

| One problem with daisys is that they can crowd out the grass - as you
| have found, so that you end up with a total daisy 'sward'. Then when
| you attempt to reduce the daisy density you end up with bare patches
| all over the place.

Then reduce the grass and have a daisy lawn! Very trendy.

| The odd one or two may be pretty, pretty. But en masse they are as
| much a menace as any other weed.

In a flower bed, yes, but they are only a menace in a lawn if you
object to them. I distinguish 'good' lawn plants (i.e. low growing,
soft underfoot, evergreen etc.) from 'bad' ones (not so), and will
remove the latter. Daisies are the former.

| Don't you listen to all those 'fashionable' gardeners ;-) They are
| only trying to justify not weeding, lazy lot!!!

Quite right, too. They're our gardens :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"Essjay001" writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Very few are allergic to bees.
|
| Maybe, but not pain.

It is not a parent's job to prevent children having a full range
of normal experiences. I do not hold with the way that I was
treated (e.g. "Pain is good for you - it develops character"),
but isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for
them.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message

Good for you John - gardening is an opportunity to do your own thing and
not be bound by what other people think you should do. Our lawn contains
anything which will survive regular mowing, i.e. mostly grass but also
plenty of daisies, buttercups, clover, moss (at times) and a host of
interesting wildflowers according to season. It provides an area for
family recreation and relaxation and it is always a joy to behold.


And that, to me, sounds exactly right)

Ophelia

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Essjay001" writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Very few are allergic to bees.
|
| Maybe, but not pain.

It is not a parent's job to prevent children having a full range
of normal experiences. I do not hold with the way that I was
treated (e.g. "Pain is good for you - it develops character"),
but isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for
them.

It's not only bad, it's impossible.

Mary


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"ned" writes:

Hey, don't give in so easily!
It's your lawn. If you want it daisy free, then you have it daisy
free.

Fine, but it's his sister that does.

......... it's his sister that does what?

One problem with daisys is that they can crowd out the grass - as
you have found, so that you end up with a total daisy 'sward'.
Then
when you attempt to reduce the daisy density you end up with bare
patches all over the place.

Then reduce the grass and have a daisy lawn! Very trendy.

And there you have it. Trendy!
There is room for every shade of gardener. Not everyone wants to be
trendy.
If you want to bring the the great outdoors into your backyard. OK,
fine.
But if you are looking for a little bit of formality with a row of
allysum, a row of lobelia, a row of tagetes, a little box hedge and a
striped lawn, ...... then have it.
To blazes with what the latest trend is, it's your garden. Try it. The
much lauded informality thing is a whole lot more difficult to create
'successfully'.

I have the luxury of a 4 acre hay meadow which gives me all the joy
and wild experience that I need. And I'm past the age where 'trendy'
imposes any influence on me.
And I wouldn't want our new gardener to feel that he has to conform to
anyones ideas other than what appeals to him.
Leave him be to experiment and make mistakes just like all of us (who
will own up) did. ... ;-) ... ;-) ... ;-)
I reckon you lot must spend more time watching the box for the latest
gimmick than bending your backs.
;-)

--
ned

....... a garden offers the opportunity to play with Nature's building
blocks.
There are no rules. Just experiment and see what works for you.

In article ,
ned wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:

And there you have it. Trendy!
There is room for every shade of gardener. Not everyone wants to be
trendy.

You Have Been Had :-)

I reckon you lot must spend more time watching the box for the latest
gimmick than bending your backs.
;-)

Doubly so :-)

While the competition for the least trendy gardener posting to
uk.rec.gardening is very strong, I am definitely in there with a
chance! I watch the box some 1-4 hours a week, exclusively the
news, weather and newsnight - because of my ghastly hearing and
the policy of discrimination against the partially deaf, I would
have a job with anything else!

Watch out for irony. Some of us go in for it ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

Watch out for irony. Some of us go in for it ....


ROFL. Cheers Nick.
Just spare a thought for the innocent new gardener humbly seeking
advice.
Sure there is room for a leg pull. But it's difficult to see the
twinkle in poster's eyes.
I won't take seriously anything you say, now. ;-)

--
ned

The message
from "ned" contains these words:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"ned" writes:

Hey, don't give in so easily!
It's your lawn. If you want it daisy free, then you have it daisy
free.

Fine, but it's his sister that does.

........ it's his sister that does what?

The OP's sister wanted him to get rid of the daisies.

I reckon you lot must spend more time watching the box for the latest
gimmick than bending your backs.
;-)

I reckon you spend more time pontificating than you do reading what
other people said.

:-X

Janet

Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from "ned" contains these words:


........ it's his sister that does what?

The OP's sister wanted him to get rid of the daisies.

That would seem to be Nick's implication but, the original post read
as follows:-

Quote
Hi,
I have just moved from a centre of town tenemant building to a semi
with a
100 foot back garden. I have never done any gardening before but think
i'm
going to enjoy it. My first problem though is that my lawn is totally
covered with daisies. Is ther a way to get rid of these without
damaging the
grass. I jsut cut it on Sunday and they have sprouted up again
already.
Any help would be greatly appreciated and you can bet your bottom
dollar
this won't be last question i will be asking. :-)

Regards,

John
Unquote.

No mention of a sister that I can see.


I reckon you spend more time pontificating than you do reading
what
other people said.

:-X

Janet

Now Janet, would you care to rephrase that last statement? ;-)
Or is this another 'Nick McLaren' style wind up? I'll bet he is
enjoying this.
grin

--
ned
.....me pontificate? Pompous? Dogmatic? Bombastic?
Surely not. There was me thinking that we are just two of a kind. ;-)

in article , Mary Fisher at
wrote on 30/5/03 6:14 pm:

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Essjay001" writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Very few are allergic to bees.
|
| Maybe, but not pain.

It is not a parent's job to prevent children having a full range
of normal experiences. I do not hold with the way that I was
treated (e.g. "Pain is good for you - it develops character"),
but isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for
them.

It's not only bad, it's impossible.

Mary

What? To make them wear shoes when running across a lawn? No it most
certainly is not. NOT if you think they might be stung and that is
avoidable. Not all children are allergic, some are. Some people (children
included), like me, become more allergic the more they are stung. Think
about it. I can no more imagine watching our grand daughter run into
possible harm than fly to the moon.

--

Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
in article , Mary Fisher at
wrote on 30/5/03 6:14 pm:

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Essjay001" writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Very few are allergic to bees.
|
| Maybe, but not pain.

It is not a parent's job to prevent children having a full range
of normal experiences. I do not hold with the way that I was
treated (e.g. "Pain is good for you - it develops character"),
but isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for
them.

It's not only bad, it's impossible.

Mary

What? To make them wear shoes when running across a lawn? No it most
certainly is not. NOT if you think they might be stung and that is
avoidable. Not all children are allergic, some are. Some people
(children
included), like me, become more allergic the more they are stung. Think
about it. I can no more imagine watching our grand daughter run into
possible harm than fly to the moon.

What he said, and what I agred with - and still agree with - was:

"isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for them."

Mary

in article , Mary Fisher at
wrote on 31/5/03 9:03 am:




"Sacha" wrote in message
...
in article , Mary Fisher at
wrote on 30/5/03 6:14 pm:

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Essjay001" writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Very few are allergic to bees.
|
| Maybe, but not pain.

It is not a parent's job to prevent children having a full range
of normal experiences. I do not hold with the way that I was
treated (e.g. "Pain is good for you - it develops character"),
but isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for
them.

It's not only bad, it's impossible.

Mary

What? To make them wear shoes when running across a lawn? No it most
certainly is not. NOT if you think they might be stung and that is
avoidable. Not all children are allergic, some are. Some people
(children
included), like me, become more allergic the more they are stung. Think
about it. I can no more imagine watching our grand daughter run into
possible harm than fly to the moon.

What he said, and what I agred with - and still agree with - was:

"isolating children from pain entirely is equally bad for them."

But nobody was suggesting that. Keeping a child from being stung is common
sense.

--

Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)