On 29 Jan 2004 Kay Easton wrote in
:

I will abstain unless someone can convince me that this concerns
me. If someone wants to create an unnecessary group which isn't
going to harm me, I don't think it's my business to try to stop
them.

Can I just say how refreshing it is to see that view. That's the way the
system was designed to work.

--
Graham Drabble
uk.net.beginners Information/discussion for newcomers to newsgroups
Personal web page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from (jane) contains these words:

Straw Poll question for urglers: if urg.allotments was created, how
many of you would unsub from urg and _just_ take urg. allotments?

I wouldn't. I'd take both.

Since I haven't got an allotment I would stay with urg, but might take
both.

I would definitely take both.

Steve

On 29 Jan 2004 Kay Easton wrote in
:

I will abstain unless someone can convince me that this concerns
me. If someone wants to create an unnecessary group which isn't
going to harm me, I don't think it's my business to try to stop
them.

Can I just say how refreshing it is to see that view. That's the way the
system was designed to work.

--
Graham Drabble
uk.net.beginners Information/discussion for newcomers to newsgroups
Personal web page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/

Repeat Post--


Hello Everyone,
I do hope that this message gets out to you all as my ISP seems to be
getting a few problems at the moment.

I've been lurking on urg for sometime and see a need for an Allotment group
forming.
I can't yet see a valid explanation why the RFD uk.rec.gardens.allotments
can't be formed. (Unless for administration purposes)
uk.rec.gardens.allotments is an idea from my good self for Allotment holders
to share in the ideas and plans into what is expected to be planted at
different times of the year, (newbie's) also, allotments are not just a
general "back garden" affair as you all well know.
Basically it's a "Corner of the room" (as someone already pointed out) so we
can talk just about anything on "Allotments". For example, Local Meetings,
Annual General Meetings and Local Allotment Functions or just a get together
at the local public house. Yes, we will indeed may well talk about "Seeds"
Planting Methods" "Greenhouse's" but this will be our little corner of the
room to do so.
I don't see why you would persist to object to this new group forming. It's
not going to take away people from urg. After all it's a free country
I'm not sure if I could stop "cross posting" unless I do make amendments to
my charter. However I still won't be able to stop this if people persist in
doing so.

Thank you to all those that would support such a group and hope that this
group can be formed in the not to distant future.

I'm sure we could come to some agreement on this and to iron out any
problems that it may or may not cause.



Regards

Gary Poston
Proponent: uk.rec.gardening.allotments

"Gary Poston" wrote in message
om...

I am opposed to the newly proposed group, since there is no need at all for
it. URG at present has a number of allotment holders as members, and their
post is always very interesting. There is no need at all for other folk
interested in allotments to have a separate group. Such a group would
dilute the range of interest of URG for no benefit to anybody.
All the post to the new group will very soon find itself crossposted to URG
The new group would become moribund in less than a year.

I oppose its formation.

Franz

"BigAl" wrote in message
...

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
Well this proposed group will either take off or end like
england.rec.gardening and free.uk.gardening,
Time will tell, but I an certain that it will take nothing away from
uk.rec.gardening


Not that I have an interest in gardening (as anyone who looks at mine will
testify) and wouldn't therefore vote but I thought I'd check some figures
via Google.

uk.rec.gardening turned up an estimated 148,000 posts of which 4,940
(earliest of which appears to be from March 2002)had the word allotment in
them.

And that would probably underestimate the total number, because many of them
would not explicitly mention the word "allotment".

Franz

"Gary Poston" wrote in message
om...

I am opposed to the newly proposed group, since there is no need at all for
it. URG at present has a number of allotment holders as members, and their
post is always very interesting. There is no need at all for other folk
interested in allotments to have a separate group. Such a group would
dilute the range of interest of URG for no benefit to anybody.
All the post to the new group will very soon find itself crossposted to URG
The new group would become moribund in less than a year.

I oppose its formation.

Franz

"BigAl" wrote in message
...

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
Well this proposed group will either take off or end like
england.rec.gardening and free.uk.gardening,
Time will tell, but I an certain that it will take nothing away from
uk.rec.gardening


Not that I have an interest in gardening (as anyone who looks at mine will
testify) and wouldn't therefore vote but I thought I'd check some figures
via Google.

uk.rec.gardening turned up an estimated 148,000 posts of which 4,940
(earliest of which appears to be from March 2002)had the word allotment in
them.

And that would probably underestimate the total number, because many of them
would not explicitly mention the word "allotment".

Franz

"jane" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jan 2004 12:14:19 -0800, (Gary Poston)
wrote:

~Hello Everyone,
~I do hope that this message gets out to you all as my ISP seems to be
~getting a few problems at the moment so this is coming from my Google
Account
~I hope my ISP will deal with my problem asap.
~
ok firstly I am neither against this or for it at the moment... being
an allotmenteer that found urg in the first place cos I wanted to find
a place to discuss allotments. Like you, by the sound of it.
But I'm known for being able to sit on a fence and argue both sides of
an argument, so here goes... :-)

~I've been lurking on urg for sometime and see a need for an Allotment
group
~forming.

Why didn't you start a discussion on urg first? This is the bit that
puzzles me! Surely introducing yourself and then having a 'Would it be
a good idea if...?" discussion over there before dashing to unnc would
have been a good idea?

My questions below are attempting to summarise the discussion so
far...

~I can't yet see a valid explanation why the RFD uk.rec.gardens.allotments
~can't be formed. (Unless for administration purposes)
~uk.rec.gardens.allotments is an idea from my good self for Allotment
holders
~to share in the ideas and plans into what is expected to be planted at
~different times of the year, (newbie's) also, allotments are not just a
~general "back garden" affair as you all well know.

Allotments are on topic for urg. A lot of the the things applicable to
allotments come up in normal gardening discussions. There is nothing
about allotments and tenancies etc that is not on topic for urg.

~Basically it's a "Corner of the room" (as someone already pointed out) so
we
~can talk just about anything on "Allotments". For example, Local
Meetings,
~Annual General Meetings and Local Allotment Functions or just a get
together
~at the local public house. Yes, we will indeed may well talk about
"Seeds"
~Planting Methods" "Greenhouse's" but this will be our little corner of
the
~room to do so.
Ah - get-togethers. A social group :-). This isn't specifically
forbidden in urg, either. Meetings have been planned and made on urg.

~I don't see why you would persist to object to this new group forming.
It's
~not going to take away people from urg. After all it's a free country
~I'm not sure if I could stop "cross posting" unless I do make amendments
to
~my charter. However I still won't be able to stop this if people persist
in
~doing so.

Well the only reason there are doubts is that everything is already
included in urg and urglers aren't exactly begging for the
allotmenteers to buzz off and talk elsewhere. In other words, from the
discussions already made, urglers would be delighted if you dropped in
on urg and talked allotments there!

~Thank you to all those that would support such a group and hope that this
~group can be formed in the not to distant future.
~
~I'm sure we could come to some agreement on this and to iron out any
~problems that it may or may not cause.
~

I would subscribe to a group on allotments, no doubt about that.
I would probably be a very loud participant :-)
I am just unsure that it's needed, unless allotmenteers already here
don't want to receive any of the other posts in urg which aren't
relevant to lotties.

Straw Poll question for urglers: if urg.allotments was created, how
many of you would unsub from urg and _just_ take urg. allotments?

I wouldn't. I'd take both.

You would not need to bother, since it will not be long before all the post
in the new group will be crossposted to URG for the sake of a wider
participation.

Franz

"jane" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jan 2004 12:14:19 -0800, (Gary Poston)
wrote:

~Hello Everyone,
~I do hope that this message gets out to you all as my ISP seems to be
~getting a few problems at the moment so this is coming from my Google
Account
~I hope my ISP will deal with my problem asap.
~
ok firstly I am neither against this or for it at the moment... being
an allotmenteer that found urg in the first place cos I wanted to find
a place to discuss allotments. Like you, by the sound of it.
But I'm known for being able to sit on a fence and argue both sides of
an argument, so here goes... :-)

~I've been lurking on urg for sometime and see a need for an Allotment
group
~forming.

Why didn't you start a discussion on urg first? This is the bit that
puzzles me! Surely introducing yourself and then having a 'Would it be
a good idea if...?" discussion over there before dashing to unnc would
have been a good idea?

My questions below are attempting to summarise the discussion so
far...

~I can't yet see a valid explanation why the RFD uk.rec.gardens.allotments
~can't be formed. (Unless for administration purposes)
~uk.rec.gardens.allotments is an idea from my good self for Allotment
holders
~to share in the ideas and plans into what is expected to be planted at
~different times of the year, (newbie's) also, allotments are not just a
~general "back garden" affair as you all well know.

Allotments are on topic for urg. A lot of the the things applicable to
allotments come up in normal gardening discussions. There is nothing
about allotments and tenancies etc that is not on topic for urg.

~Basically it's a "Corner of the room" (as someone already pointed out) so
we
~can talk just about anything on "Allotments". For example, Local
Meetings,
~Annual General Meetings and Local Allotment Functions or just a get
together
~at the local public house. Yes, we will indeed may well talk about
"Seeds"
~Planting Methods" "Greenhouse's" but this will be our little corner of
the
~room to do so.
Ah - get-togethers. A social group :-). This isn't specifically
forbidden in urg, either. Meetings have been planned and made on urg.

~I don't see why you would persist to object to this new group forming.
It's
~not going to take away people from urg. After all it's a free country
~I'm not sure if I could stop "cross posting" unless I do make amendments
to
~my charter. However I still won't be able to stop this if people persist
in
~doing so.

Well the only reason there are doubts is that everything is already
included in urg and urglers aren't exactly begging for the
allotmenteers to buzz off and talk elsewhere. In other words, from the
discussions already made, urglers would be delighted if you dropped in
on urg and talked allotments there!

~Thank you to all those that would support such a group and hope that this
~group can be formed in the not to distant future.
~
~I'm sure we could come to some agreement on this and to iron out any
~problems that it may or may not cause.
~

I would subscribe to a group on allotments, no doubt about that.
I would probably be a very loud participant :-)
I am just unsure that it's needed, unless allotmenteers already here
don't want to receive any of the other posts in urg which aren't
relevant to lotties.

Straw Poll question for urglers: if urg.allotments was created, how
many of you would unsub from urg and _just_ take urg. allotments?

I wouldn't. I'd take both.

You would not need to bother, since it will not be long before all the post
in the new group will be crossposted to URG for the sake of a wider
participation.

Franz

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from (jane) contains these words:

Straw Poll question for urglers: if urg.allotments was created, how
many of you would unsub from urg and _just_ take urg. allotments?

I wouldn't. I'd take both.

Since I haven't got an allotment I would stay with urg, but might take
both.

I would definitely take both.

So, so far I have seen nobody who says they will go for the new group to the
exclusion of URG. My question then is why bother with the new group, since
URG by itself copes perfectly well with allotment questions.

Franz

"Gary Poston" wrote in message
m...
Repeat Post--

You are beginning to be boring.

Franz

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from (jane) contains these words:

Straw Poll question for urglers: if urg.allotments was created, how
many of you would unsub from urg and _just_ take urg. allotments?

I wouldn't. I'd take both.

Since I haven't got an allotment I would stay with urg, but might take
both.

I would definitely take both.

So, so far I have seen nobody who says they will go for the new group to the
exclusion of URG. My question then is why bother with the new group, since
URG by itself copes perfectly well with allotment questions.

Franz

"Gary Poston" wrote in message
m...
Repeat Post--

You are beginning to be boring.

Franz

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from (jane) contains these words:

Straw Poll question for urglers: if urg.allotments was created, how
many of you would unsub from urg and _just_ take urg. allotments?

I wouldn't. I'd take both.

Since I haven't got an allotment I would stay with urg, but might take
both.

I would definitely take both.

So, so far I have seen nobody who says they will go for the new group to the
exclusion of URG. My question then is why bother with the new group, since
URG by itself copes perfectly well with allotment questions.

Franz