Anonymous wrote:Ask if he is willing to pay for a natural lawn service for you. If not, then tell him that you are doing the best that you can and he will have to live with it.

...In 1948, advertisements for Scotts’ new product, “Killex,” began appearing in Better Homes & Gardens, Ladies Home Journal, Horticulture and other magazines of the day. Comely barehanded homemakers were depicted sprinkling Killex onto their lawns to remove dandelions, plantain, chickweed and 50 or so other so-called weeds. Soon after, an even more popular amalgamation emerged. When the first bag of Scotts Weed ’n Feed rolled off the conveyor belts at the Scotts headquarters in the central Ohio town of Marysville, it changed the very nature of lawn care. Instead of applying fertilizer in one pass and weed killer in another, homeowners and gardeners could now put down weed ’n feed to do both jobs at once — usually across the entire lawn — thereby creating an explosion for the demand for Milt Carleton’s new miracle acid.
The fact that 2,4-D smelled acutely toxic, ironically, was not the first big dilemma facing the product. Early activists rallied because Killex and Scotts Weed ’n Feed eradicated the clover that theretofore had been North America’s favorite lawn plant. Since it was evergreen, drought-tolerant, low-growing and capable of manufacturing its own fertilizer by attaching nitrogen from the atmosphere to its roots, clover had been a part of virtually all seed mixes ever since Americans began consciously cultivating lawns. No matter how hard Carleton and others tried, though, they couldn’t come up with a formulation of 2,4-D that allowed the clover and grass to live in harmony. The issue was acknowledged in Carleton’s 1957 book titled A New Way to Kill Weeds:
“The thought of white Dutch clover as a lawn weed will come as a distinct
shock to old-time gardeners. I can remember the day when lawn mixtures
were judged for quality by the percentage of clover seed they contained.
The higher this figure, the better the mixture. . . I can remember the loving
care which old-time gardeners gave their clover lawns. The smug look on the
face of the proud homeowner whose stand was the best in the neighborhood
was really something to behold.”
The clover quandary was deftly handled by the same marketers who had, seemingly overnight, made the phrase “weed ’n feed” part of American vernacular. In this case, clover was re-branded as a weed by use of the oldest promotional ploy in the book: manufacturing fear. Clover, you see, attracts bees by the thousands when the flowers bloom in mid summer. Bees, claimed the deft advertisements, sting children. Young mothers took note and, within a generation, clover was gone from most seed mixes. Soon, the three- and four-leafed plants, just like the bees, were disappearing from lawns.
As for those pesky and persistent claims that exposure to 2,4-D also carried other side effects — among them diarrhea, blurred vision, respiratory irritation, confusion, numbness and tingling, bleeding from the nose and chemical hypersensitivity — they were quickly cast aside by a hearty gulp in clear public view. The man who had effectively launched the weed ’n feed industry utterly scoffed at the notion that his product was harmful to human or environmental health....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to keep up your lawn. There's a thing called pride in ownership. Don't bring down the neighborhood because you don't want to do anything that's not fun with your kids on the weekends. A weed-filled lawn would piss me off because it reflects poorly on the neighborhood.

Why does pride in ownership have to mean no weeds?

The inside of my home is spotless, we have no trash in our yard, the shingles are painted. I don't find weeds offensive, and don't want to use herbicides/pesticides/fertilizers. I feel it's better for the environment. I have weighed the pros and cons of using that crap and decided against it. Don't assume that people who have weeds have no 'pride in ownership'.

No one in your neighborhood gives a crap what your house looks like on the inside. If it's overgrown with weeds, it looks like shit and shows a lack of pride.

That's your opinion. I think all the pesticides and fertilizers are making the Chesapeake Bay and the rest of the planet look like crap. I think the fact that you're willing to use that shit shows your lack of pride in our planet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fickleness of DCUM posters never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago there was a poster who complained about chain link fence in the neighborhood (making the neighborhood unattractive) and everyone went crazy calling him/her an elitist, stupid, and worse. Now the OP has a neighbor who is complaining about weeds in her yard and posters are telling her that she should not only do something about it, including using pesticides and a lawn service, but that she could actually get sued. Huh?

I was one of the main ones calling the chain link op a snob...... because she was one. Declaring something white trash IS a bit elitist, especially when you continue after it's pointed out that chain link is more cost effective to some people.

This one is more about OP's neighbor over stepping his bounds. And I do believe most of the litigation nonsense is just that: nonsense. Except for that one troll who swears his friends roommate sisters cousins nephews great uncles dogs vet won a big lawsuit for getting stung.

Disagree, it's a double standard. Letting weeds grow and not using a lawn service is more cost effective to some people too, though most of the posts on this thread seem to be siding with OP's neighbor. We regularly mow our lawn but by week's end the dandelions start to emerge, especially in early summer. Anyone who tells me I need to get a lawnservice and use chemicals because it hurts their property in some way or makes the neighborhood unattractive can suck it.

FBO wrote:Your lawn, your rules. Tell him to get lost and mind his own business.

HOA? Check the rules because you may be held to that standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't need to worry about bees disappearing there are large sources of polination alternatives readily available

http://ucanr.org/delivers/?impact=305

Yeah, thanks for that panty sniffer. Think I'll go with EINSTIEN over you.

http://voices.yahoo.com/einstein-if-honeybees-disappear-man-will-disappear-6080338.html?cat=9

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fickleness of DCUM posters never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago there was a poster who complained about chain link fence in the neighborhood (making the neighborhood unattractive) and everyone went crazy calling him/her an elitist, stupid, and worse. Now the OP has a neighbor who is complaining about weeds in her yard and posters are telling her that she should not only do something about it, including using pesticides and a lawn service, but that she could actually get sued. Huh?

I was one of the main ones calling the chain link op a snob...... because she was one. Declaring something white trash IS a bit elitist, especially when you continue after it's pointed out that chain link is more cost effective to some people.

This one is more about OP's neighbor over stepping his bounds. And I do believe most of the litigation nonsense is just that: nonsense. Except for that one troll who swears his friends roommate sisters cousins nephews great uncles dogs vet won a big lawsuit for getting stung.

Disagree, it's a double standard. Letting weeds grow and not using a lawn service is more cost effective to some people too, though most of the posts on this thread seem to be siding with OP's neighbor. We regularly mow our lawn but by week's end the dandelions start to emerge, especially in early summer. Anyone who tells me I need to get a lawnservice and use chemicals because it hurts their property in some way or makes the neighborhood unattractive can suck it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fickleness of DCUM posters never ceases to amaze me. A few weeks ago there was a poster who complained about chain link fence in the neighborhood (making the neighborhood unattractive) and everyone went crazy calling him/her an elitist, stupid, and worse. Now the OP has a neighbor who is complaining about weeds in her yard and posters are telling her that she should not only do something about it, including using pesticides and a lawn service, but that she could actually get sued. Huh?

I was one of the main ones calling the chain link op a snob...... because she was one. Declaring something white trash IS a bit elitist, especially when you continue after it's pointed out that chain link is more cost effective to some people.

This one is more about OP's neighbor over stepping his bounds. And I do believe most of the litigation nonsense is just that: nonsense. Except for that one troll who swears his friends roommate sisters cousins nephews great uncles dogs vet won a big lawsuit for getting stung.