Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:185263 uk.net.news.config:127288


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

Are you so worried that URG is so weak not to be able to stand some
people
moving to another group?
I just CANNOT understand why you should feel so upset about this
proposed
group.
To encourage others to 'hasten its demise'?
What are you on Franz? Double the dose, quickly!!!!

I consider it a privilege to be able to use usenet and I am irrevocably
opposed to fouling it up with a quite unnecessary plethora of newsgroups
which will just become dormant within a few months.

What is your evidence for this assumption? Or can you read the future? If
so, got the winner of this years National?

This newly proposed group is quite precisely unnecessary because as true
as
I am sitting here, anything in it of real interest will be crossposted to
urg.

Why will it? When the discussion would strictly be OT for urg.

The quotes in this thread about Urg's charter, show that allotments are
not
specifically INCLUDED, this alone may
may be why people see a need for a new group.

That is an idiotic response. The culture of Dahlias is also not
specifically INCLUDED in urg's charter

A very idiotic answer, that would be covered by the discussion of flowers,
as you well realise.

Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.

No, but wasting usenet resources is.

What resources? When are they to be wasted and by what amount?
You don't have to subcribe to the proposed group, less to download,
therefore saving some 'resources'.

I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

You're welcome to vote whichever way you wish.
Are votes against it also counted? If so I put mine in that box.

Franz

Anthony