That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.

Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to 'Have a
go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

Which one of you is 'Mabel at the Table'? And just remember where she ended
up :-(( on a soap. Is that all you think both of you are fit for?

AND YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO HAVE A GO AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike
Sorry, unable to 'name drop' as to who lived in my house before me

:-(((((((((

--
..
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from lawnmower man contains
these words:


Hi All

I know this is probably a thread that has been asked before and for
this i apologise. I have tried to access the archive but had no luck so
here goes!!!

You aren't looking in the right place. uk .rec.gardening is a usenet
newsgroup, and has nothing to do with gardenbanter. You're not seeing
the full real newsgroup, just the pitifully mangled clumsy fraction of
it which gardenbanter permits you to see.

The urg archive also has nothing to do with gardenbanter and is not
located on that website.

You'll find free public access to the REAL urg archive at
http://groups.google.com/
Type the name of the group in the search field. From there. go to
advanced search and put in key words of the topic you're looking for;
it's self explanatory.

Janet

Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.

Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?


I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts littered
around all over the website for which he gets an income) and I alos don't
agree with my ramblings being placed on a website which doesn't have my
permission, where does it end? - what if another 'portal' opened up, one
with illegal stuff on it and used my (or your) quotes, would you still be
happy to be 'associated' with it then?

Phil L wrote:
Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.
Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts littered
around all over the website for which he gets an income) and I alos don't
agree with my ramblings being placed on a website which doesn't have my
permission, where does it end?

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads, and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture. The newsfeed
seems to be complete for u.r.g, as well - it's even got anti-G.B.
posts from "Sacha" and "Janet Baraclough" as well as your comments.
While I don't think I'd particularly enjoy using their interface,
I can't see a big problem with it.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.
Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts littered
around all over the website for which he gets an income) and I alos don't
agree with my ramblings being placed on a website which doesn't have my
permission, where does it end?

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads, and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture. The newsfeed
seems to be complete for u.r.g, as well - it's even got anti-G.B.
posts from "Sacha" and "Janet Baraclough" as well as your comments.
While I don't think I'd particularly enjoy using their interface,
I can't see a big problem with it.


Glad you said that. It's probably what a lot of people are thinking.
Prepare to be educated by Janet & Sacha

Rupert wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter [snip]
I can't see a big problem with it.

Glad you said that. It's probably what a lot of people are thinking.

Well, the posters *are* probably gardeners, aren't they!

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.
Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts littered
around all over the website for which he gets an income) and I alos
don't
agree with my ramblings being placed on a website which doesn't have my
permission, where does it end?

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads, and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture. The newsfeed
seems to be complete for u.r.g, as well - it's even got anti-G.B.
posts from "Sacha" and "Janet Baraclough" as well as your comments.
While I don't think I'd particularly enjoy using their interface,
I can't see a big problem with it.


That isn't the problem.

The problem is that posts show up on here from people posting in
Gardenbanter, who are totally unaware of Usenet or NewsGroups,
at all, and who are often responding to messages in Gardenbanter
which don't even show up on here.

After a while, as you may imagine it can get a bit wearing.

One basic assumption about NewsGroups is that most people who post
will get the hang of things by first reading the NewsGroup for a
while. Many of the posts from Gardenbanter are from total newbies
attracted to their website for some reason, who don't really have
a clue. And it's not the role of NewsGroups to have to put them
straight as to how the Banter websites work - "Gardenbanter" isn't
the only one you'll be pleased to know - and their relation to
Usenet and NewsGroups. That should be the job of the Banter
sites.
And because they're from newbies, its impossible to killfile
all their posts in advance. Allegedly.


michael adams

....

amended:


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.
Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts littered
around all over the website for which he gets an income) and I alos
don't
agree with my ramblings being placed on a website which doesn't have my
permission, where does it end?

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads,

....

Having just had a look, like all the banters sites its
used for harvesting email addresses from particular interest
groups.

You need a password to post, for which you need to give them a valid
email address. Most newbies won't think twice and will end up getting
inundated with spam.

....


and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture. The newsfeed
seems to be complete for u.r.g, as well - it's even got anti-G.B.
posts from "Sacha" and "Janet Baraclough" as well as your comments.
While I don't think I'd particularly enjoy using their interface,
I can't see a big problem with it.


That isn't the problem.

The problem is that posts show up on here from people posting in
Gardenbanter, who are totally unaware of Usenet or NewsGroups,
at all, and who are often responding to messages in Gardenbanter
which don't even show up on here.

After a while, as you may imagine it can get a bit wearing.

One basic assumption about NewsGroups is that most people who post
will get the hang of things by first reading the NewsGroup for a
while. Many of the posts from Gardenbanter are from total newbies
attracted to their website for some reason, who don't really have
a clue. And it's not the role of NewsGroups to have to put them
straight as to how the Banter websites work - "Gardenbanter" isn't
the only one you'll be pleased to know - and their relation to
Usenet and NewsGroups. That should be the job of the Banter
sites.
And because they're from newbies, its impossible to killfile
all their posts in advance. Allegedly.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter
...
Having just had a look, like all the banters sites its
used for harvesting email addresses from particular interest
groups.

You need a password to post, for which you need to give them a valid
email address. Most newbies won't think twice and will end up getting
inundated with spam.
...

It doesn't say anything about that in their "privacy
statement". I've registered, to see what happens!

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Phil L wrote:
Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.
Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts littered
around all over the website for which he gets an income) and I alos
don't
agree with my ramblings being placed on a website which doesn't have my
permission, where does it end?

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads, and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture. The newsfeed
seems to be complete for u.r.g, as well - it's even got anti-G.B.
posts from "Sacha" and "Janet Baraclough" as well as your comments.
While I don't think I'd particularly enjoy using their interface,
I can't see a big problem with it.


That isn't the problem.

The problem is that posts show up on here from people posting in
Gardenbanter, who are totally unaware of Usenet or NewsGroups,
at all, and who are often responding to messages in Gardenbanter
which don't even show up on here.

After a while, as you may imagine it can get a bit wearing.

One basic assumption about NewsGroups is that most people who post
will get the hang of things by first reading the NewsGroup for a
while. Many of the posts from Gardenbanter are from total newbies
attracted to their website for some reason, who don't really have
a clue. And it's not the role of NewsGroups to have to put them
straight as to how the Banter websites work - "Gardenbanter" isn't
the only one you'll be pleased to know - and their relation to
Usenet and NewsGroups. That should be the job of the Banter
sites.
And because they're from newbies, its impossible to killfile
all their posts in advance. Allegedly.


michael adams

...
I don't use GB but I can see that broken threads will cause confusion,
although neither Chris or I can find any.
The problem is not helped by Isp's who do not offer news or email servers
and rely totally on web based stuff. Under those circumstances the Newbie or
Pro will have problems conforming to standards

Rupert wrote:
I don't use GB but I can see that broken threads will cause confusion,
although neither Chris or I can find any.

Hang on, Rupe (if I may call you that) - I haven't looked for
broken threads. Is there an "internal post" function to G.B.?
If people there post to u.r.g. from there, presumably they'll
reply here each time to, won't they? I'd like to see (be shown!
one of these "broken threads", just to satisfy my curiosity.

I see there'e a "sticky" article (not my terminology!) with the
title "abc for newcomers to uk.rec.gardening. Please read...
before posting" which recommends that the u.r.g. charter/FAQs
be read, which should help noobs.


The problem is not helped by Isp's who do not offer news or email servers
and rely totally on web based stuff. Under those circumstances the Newbie or
Pro will have problems conforming to standards

Many people who "use the 'net" have never heard of Usenet, or
anything much apart from Microsoft products. However, that's
probably a topic for another place...

I don't use GB but I can see that broken threads will cause confusion,
although neither Chris or I can find any.


The following was posted on here via gardenbanter, in response to a
post made on uk.rec.gardening on Nov 4 2002

The names and addresses have been obscured

----

Newsgroups: uk.rec.gardening
From: XXX -
Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:28:34 +0000
Local: Mon, Aug 29 2005 8:28 am
Subject: Anyone want some Ipomea seeds?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual
Message | Show original | Report Abuse



Dear XXXXXX, if you would really like to offload a few Ipomea seeds I
would love them especially magenta. Have you tried variety 'Grandpa
Oats' lovely deep purple with magenta star. My address 5 XXXXXX
XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXX
Many Thanks
XXX

----


michael adams

....

Chris Bacon wrote:
Phil L wrote:
Mike wrote:
That's both of you net nanny owners of this newsgroup had a go now.
Just what is the matter with the pair of you that you BOTH have to
'Have a go' at both the poster and Garden banter?

I don't think anyone had a go at the OP, just gardenbanter, which is
surreptitiously using our postings to gain income,
(if you ever visit that hideous place you will see the adverts
littered around all over the website for which he gets an income)
and I alos don't agree with my ramblings being placed on a website
which doesn't have my permission, where does it end?

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads, and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture. The newsfeed
seems to be complete for u.r.g, as well - it's even got anti-G.B.
posts from "Sacha" and "Janet Baraclough" as well as your comments.
While I don't think I'd particularly enjoy using their interface,
I can't see a big problem with it.

The ads aren't intrusive, IE not popups or similar but they are there, just
clicking on the UK 'banter' department gives you this page, which contains
no less than 15 advertsement links:
https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/united-kingdom/

clicking on any of the threads gives different adverts, EG clicking the one
about 'planting bulbs on a late...' gives specific ads relating to bulbs,
"buy flower bulbs direct" £buy flower bulbs for less" Flower bulbs are us"
etc etc...clicking on the post entitled 'gates' brings up similar garbage
"foxwedge gates Ltd" " jacksons security fencing" and so on.

Phil L wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at gardenbanter - I can't
see intrusive ads, and AFAIK there's no reason that posts from
u.r.g shouldn't be incorporated into such a venture.

The ads aren't intrusive, IE not popups or similar but they are there, just
clicking on the UK 'banter' department gives you this page, which contains
no less than 15 advertsement links:
http://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=41

But they're only visible to G.B. users, not here... what
is the issue? Mightn't they be useful for a subset of
gardeners? Even the RHS accepts (and charges for!)
advertisements!