The Inconstant Gardener

Originally posted by twhitehead
If the area was deliberately allowed to run wild, then they aren't weeds. A weed is a plant you do not want, not a particular species.

Thank you Monty Don.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should we not get upset? Your logic eludes me.

I was responding within the context of the OP's analogy.
As you well know.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm reminded of the old joke:
A vicar on seeing a pensioner's beautiful flowering garden remarks
"It's amazing what Man and God can do together"
The Old-timer replies:
"Aye ... but you should have seen the state of it when God had it to himself!"

There is nice humour and possibly a cryptic truth in this comment; regarding the purpose of man.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And do you suspect this purely because it sounds kind of zen, or because you have actual logical reasons to think it?

Why would I suspect something if it 'didn't' have actual logical reasons to support it?

Who am I, Robbie?

Originally posted by divegeester
I was responding within the context of the OP's analogy.
As you well know.

As as you note, I am well aware of the context. The question still stands and still remains unanswered. Why should we not get upset in the context of the OP?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As as you note, I am well aware of the context. The question still stands and still remains unanswered. Why should we not get upset in the context of the OP?

Tell me about your relationship with your hydrangeas.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why would I suspect something if it 'didn't' have actual logical reasons to support it?

Who am I, Robbie?

dude, I am the King of Empiricism!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude, I am the King of Empiricism!

Dodge much these days?

Originally posted by divegeester
Tell me about your relationship with your hydrangeas.

I do not have hydrangeas, but if I did, and chose to kill them all, I imagine they could get upset. Very upset.
Now answer the question. That's twice you have dodged.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not have hydrangeas, but if I did, and chose to kill them all, I imagine they could get upset. Very upset.
Now answer the question. That's twice you have dodged.

If all we are is plants, (which I am not saying we are comparable to, the OP is) then there's nothing to be upset about if when the owner does a bit of gardening. You do have a garden I presume? I assume you have dug a plant up at some point in your life? Did you consider the plants feeling, the feelings of its family or those around it?

Originally posted by divegeester
If all we are is plants, (which I am not saying we are comparable to, the OP is) then there's nothing to be upset about if when the owner does a bit of gardening.

All you are doing is repeating the statement I am questioning. What leads you to that conclusion?

You do have a garden I presume?
A shared garden that I don't take care of, but I have had a garden in the past.

I assume you have dug a plant up at some point in your life?
Yes.

Did you consider the plants feeling, the feelings of its family or those around it?
No. What does that have to do with whether or not it had feelings on the matter?

You seem to be trying to get away with 'its obvious so I don't have to explain'. It isn't obvious. Explain it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All you are doing is repeating the statement I am questioning. What leads you to that conclusion?

[b]You do have a garden I presume?
A shared garden that I don't take care of, but I have had a garden in the past.

I assume you have dug a plant up at some point in your life?
Yes.

Did you consider the plants feeling, the feelings o ...[text shortened]... trying to get away with 'its obvious so I don't have to explain'. It isn't obvious. Explain it.

I have explained what i meant. Re-read my previous post.

Originally posted by divegeester
I have explained what i meant. Re-read my previous post.

I have read it and still don't see an explanation. All I see is repeated question dodging.
You first tried to pretend that I did not see the context in which the first post was made, then you tried 'leading questions' in the hope I would answer your question for you, then you tried to pretend the answer is obvious. Then you just repeated the original statement.

Where is the actual explanation for why we should not get upset if our gardener pulls us all up and replaces us with other flowers? It may seem obvious to you, but it clearly isn't obvious to me. It is obvious to me that a replaced and or killed flower would and should get upset.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have read it and still don't see an explanation. All I see is repeated question dodging.
You first tried to pretend that I did not see the context in which the first post was made, then you tried 'leading questions' in the hope I would answer your question for you, then you tried to pretend the answer is obvious. Then you just repeated the original sta ...[text shortened]... ious to me. It is obvious to me that a replaced and or killed flower would and should get upset.

"If all we are is plants, (which I am not saying we are comparable to, the OP is) then there's nothing to be upset about if when the owner does a bit of gardening."

What is it about this that you don't understand?

If you are unclear as to what GoaD was alluding to with his analogy, why don't you PM him and then get back to me when you are clear. 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
What is it about this that you don't understand?

I understand every word. But it is nothing more than a restatement of the original post that I asked about. It does not contain an explanation at all.

If all we are is plants, then why is there nothing to be upset about if the owner does a bit of gardening?

What about my question do you not understand?