On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:27:14 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote:


I am an allotment holder, I run an allotment diary on my webpage (with
hints, tips etc) and I do think there's a need for a place for people
to ask questions. I subscribed in the first place to urg as it was
just that and I had a query or two.
A lottie subgroup would probably be a very low volume group, and most
of the posts would probably get crossposted to urg in any case, to
catch folk who didn't sub to the new group.

In which situation, why do we need a new one? urg is not the highest
volume group and it's friendly! And allotments are not off topic...

My take: Subgroup not needed as urg is inclusive, and most posts would
probably be crossposted to urg in any case, wasting bandwidth.

Not that I have the right in a uk group, but I agree. Seems like half
the posts to rec.gardens are cross-posted to rec.gardens.edible. The
truly specialized groups (.ponds, .bamboo, .orchids) are useful for
particular passions. Rec.gardens covers houseplants, as gardeners
inside and outside overlap considerably. I enjoy 'allotment' posts
here because while this isn't common in the US, there *are* a few
(I've had one) and the posts are interesting.