"Janet Baraclough .." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:
It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it
again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous
paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context
or alter intended meaning.

Yes I realise it was your post Janet, and your answer was in reply to my
reply to Franz, if you see what I mean
But what I was saying was that to cut the sentence before the full stop did,
in my opinion, alter the meaning.


SNIP quote of urg
charter).......................................... ........................

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression
that if a subject was not included it was off topic.


(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

In that case Franz should have said PAST threads, but as usual he was having
trouble making sense!

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose
just
because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has
chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the
Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an
empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available
elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is
on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims
to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been
long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make
use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters.

Thank You. At last a proper answer.

I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate
as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the
new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter.

If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group
within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an
alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of
that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons.

Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-)

Janet

Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument
against the proposal.
I don't agree with it however
I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some
people seem to be
making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the
proposal for no other
reason than their own selfish goals.

Regards
Anthony