Well, consider this.

The roof won't grow but will need to be replaced sooner than normal because of the supplemental irrigation.

The sidewalk won't grow, either. Same goes for wear & tear from supplemental irrigation the concrete receives.

Then also consider the amount wasted water via runoff.
Sprinklers are rated in gallons per minute. That's a lot of wasted water over a 3-hour period.
Also a high water bill.

I was beginning to feel lonely in this thread, so thanks for all that. The problem is that the question I asked intended to deal with which is better FOR THE PLANTS. Both my ex and my daughter say that I have to treat each plant individually, flooding each of them with TLC from a hand-held hose, while I find it difficult to believe that diligent and sufficient watering from a sprinkler isn't just as good.

Okay, the rest of the story.

Either system will work as long as it meets the goal of moistening the entire rootzone of each plant. That means both deep and wide.

If a major distance is between adjacent plants, a sprinkler would waste lots of water.

But more often than not, someone who hand waters individual plants by counting up to whatever, seldom reaches the goal.

The only way you can know that the goal is met is to stick a trowel in the soil to see where the water went.

Does that help?

Well, it's not as funny as your first reply, but it's certainly more to the point. Let's see what reaction we get when I send a link to this page to the girls.

Barb says:
"Well, if you let the sprinkler run for hours, it will eventually get enough water."

Holly says:
"... It doesnâÂÂt take very long to water each spot really -- you are just giving each guy a good drink. Sometimes itâÂÂs very hard on the plants to have water on their flowers and leaves and I think that is what happened to all the impatiens last year -- they got sick of being wet and they all died of a fungus that got all over them. DoesnâÂÂt make for pretty plants when they all die..."

Jean, any comment?