"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:05:50 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:


Quote from start of thread: The Proponent is Gary Poston
================================================= ==================

PROPONENT's Summary of Discussion

I've not taken part in the discussion but monitored it and think I
can win. On monitoring the threads for the last 10 days and come to
a conclusion that I expect to have at least 12 more yes votes than
no votes.

"Some" people are still against the formation of
uk.rec.gardening.allotments. "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a
total different issue to "Gardening" for example; Allotments are
"plots of land" not your common house "garden".

People with Allotments are more likely to use
uk.rec.gardening.allotments
because this will be more common to them and would cut bandwidth with
regards to uk.rec.gardening general gardening threads. A lot of people
are in favour of an uk.rec.gardening.allotments newsgroup, a select
few "beg to differ" or are in two minds which way to vote.


That "summary" does not tally with my reading of the discussion
either
here or in unnc.
For instance, I saw nothing in the public discussion to support the
claim that (of the people who took part),

"Most" believe allotments are a total different issue to gardening"
(sic).

*full quote*
"Most" believe that "Allotments" are a total different issue to
"Gardening"
for example;
Allotments are "plots of land" not your common house "garden".
*full quote*

So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

He totally ignored all the negative comments made to his proposed
charter.
Urglers should note Gary's final para about "cutting bandwidth to urg
general gardening threads". In other words his stated aim and intention
is that his new group will reduce the number of postings to urg on a
topic that has often enriched urg gardening discussions in the past.

Is that good for uk.rec.gardening? I beg to differ.

Where in the proposal does he say that a new group would be good for URG?

Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of "good
for URG"

But where would the harm come from? A minority of posts on a subject not
included in urgs'
charter

That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter and
understand it before talking such nonsense.

on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and
planning to their
hearts content.

Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning to
their hearts content."
Please look at the list of current threads.

This would leave urg to become the proper place to discuss
plants/planting/growing
in the home gardening situation, like its title.

None of the above exclude the discussion of allotment gardening.
If you don't believe this, then instead of just bleating, post something
about allotment gardening to see what sort of response you get.

Subscribe to both, if, as some say, 'it will die', so be it!

That is not a sensible reason for starting a new group.

If it flourishes, more power to it!
Either way, you will have to read no more posts (unless it takes off),
once
you have marked a post as read
it is read on the next group as well (well it does on the most common
newsreader), so you only have to read
'unread' posts.
Which ever way it goes the only winner can be Horticulture!
(should urg be u.r h? )

I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last paragraph
spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy the whim
of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to participate in
the existing group.

Franz