In message
"Franz Heymann" wrote:


"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.

Think you miss the point Franz, it gives folk the option of reducing the amount
of news items the wish to download.
That in turn reduces bandwidth which must be good for us all.
I for one will vote in favour as and when call for votes is requested.

Cheers

--
Duncan MacCallum

In message
"Franz Heymann" wrote:


"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.

Think you miss the point Franz, it gives folk the option of reducing the amount
of news items the wish to download.
That in turn reduces bandwidth which must be good for us all.
I for one will vote in favour as and when call for votes is requested.

Cheers

--
Duncan MacCallum

In message
"Franz Heymann" wrote:


"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.

Think you miss the point Franz, it gives folk the option of reducing the amount
of news items the wish to download.
That in turn reduces bandwidth which must be good for us all.
I for one will vote in favour as and when call for votes is requested.

Cheers

--
Duncan MacCallum

The message
from (Gary Poston) contains these words:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
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.


Yes, Perhaps, but you don't know who is lurking here.

Neither do you; and to state the obvious, silent lurkers contribute
zero whichever group they lurk in. You appear to seriously underestimate
the fact that *active contributors* are the essential life-blood
without which newsgroups wither and die.

I really don't see a problem letting us Allotment people get on with
trying to form our own "corner of the room" to talk about all things
Allotments.

How very divisive and exclusive that sounds.

Janet

The message
from (Gary Poston) contains these words:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
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.


Yes, Perhaps, but you don't know who is lurking here.

Neither do you; and to state the obvious, silent lurkers contribute
zero whichever group they lurk in. You appear to seriously underestimate
the fact that *active contributors* are the essential life-blood
without which newsgroups wither and die.

I really don't see a problem letting us Allotment people get on with
trying to form our own "corner of the room" to talk about all things
Allotments.

How very divisive and exclusive that sounds.

Janet

The message
from (Gary Poston) contains these words:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
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.


Yes, Perhaps, but you don't know who is lurking here.

Neither do you; and to state the obvious, silent lurkers contribute
zero whichever group they lurk in. You appear to seriously underestimate
the fact that *active contributors* are the essential life-blood
without which newsgroups wither and die.

I really don't see a problem letting us Allotment people get on with
trying to form our own "corner of the room" to talk about all things
Allotments.

How very divisive and exclusive that sounds.

Janet

The message
from (Gary Poston) contains these words:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
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.


Yes, Perhaps, but you don't know who is lurking here.

Neither do you; and to state the obvious, silent lurkers contribute
zero whichever group they lurk in. You appear to seriously underestimate
the fact that *active contributors* are the essential life-blood
without which newsgroups wither and die.

I really don't see a problem letting us Allotment people get on with
trying to form our own "corner of the room" to talk about all things
Allotments.

How very divisive and exclusive that sounds.

Janet

"Janet Baraclough .." wrote in
message ...
The message
from (Gary Poston) contains these words:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
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.


Yes, Perhaps, but you don't know who is lurking here.

Neither do you; and to state the obvious, silent lurkers contribute
zero whichever group they lurk in. You appear to seriously underestimate
the fact that *active contributors* are the essential life-blood
without which newsgroups wither and die.

I really don't see a problem letting us Allotment people get on with
trying to form our own "corner of the room" to talk about all things
Allotments.

How very divisive and exclusive that sounds.

Janet

So come and join us. You'll be welcome.

"Duncan MacCallum" wrote in message
...
In message
"Franz Heymann" wrote:


"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.

Think you miss the point Franz, it gives folk the option of reducing the
amount
of news items the wish to download.

Before long, everything in the proposed group would be crossposted to urg

That in turn reduces bandwidth which must be good for us all.
I for one will vote in favour as and when call for votes is requested.

Franz

The message
from Duncan MacCallum contains these words:

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.

Think you miss the point Franz, it gives folk the option of reducing
the amount
of news items the wish to download.
That in turn reduces bandwidth which must be good for us all.
I for one will vote in favour as and when call for votes is requested.

That's a fair enough view, but since many, if not most of the posts
could be crossposted, I wouldn't think you'd get very much benefit.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Duncan MacCallum contains these words:

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.

Think you miss the point Franz, it gives folk the option of reducing
the amount
of news items the wish to download.
That in turn reduces bandwidth which must be good for us all.
I for one will vote in favour as and when call for votes is requested.

That's a fair enough view, but since many, if not most of the posts
could be crossposted, I wouldn't think you'd get very much benefit.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Definition
Allotment

A small piece of ground in or just outside a town that a person rents
for growing vegetables, fruits or flowers.

Allotment holders take it very seriously when it comes to cultivating
and planting on there rented land.
In our local allotment in Torquay we are always exchanging old and new
ideas, like many im sure.
It's a very close community and so will uk.rec.gardening.allotments.
Where we can discuss "Rent" "Council Rent" Local Meets" "Seeds"
"Cultivation Methods" "Local Plots Up For Rent" "Bulk Seed Suppliers"
"New Products on the market", that to only mention a few ideas.
Yes, People may well post in urg as well as
uk.rec.gardening.allotments
but we all don't only shop at Sainburys.

I hope this proposed new group brings Allotments holders together,
I truly think it will!


Regards

Gary Poston
Proponent: uk.rec.gardening.allotment (urgalers):-)

Definition
Allotment

A small piece of ground in or just outside a town that a person rents
for growing vegetables, fruits or flowers.

Allotment holders take it very seriously when it comes to cultivating
and planting on there rented land.
In our local allotment in Torquay we are always exchanging old and new
ideas, like many im sure.
It's a very close community and so will uk.rec.gardening.allotments.
Where we can discuss "Rent" "Council Rent" Local Meets" "Seeds"
"Cultivation Methods" "Local Plots Up For Rent" "Bulk Seed Suppliers"
"New Products on the market", that to only mention a few ideas.
Yes, People may well post in urg as well as
uk.rec.gardening.allotments
but we all don't only shop at Sainburys.

I hope this proposed new group brings Allotments holders together,
I truly think it will!


Regards

Gary Poston
Proponent: uk.rec.gardening.allotment (urgalers):-)

"Gary Poston" wrote in message
om...
Definition
Allotment

A small piece of ground in or just outside a town that a person rents
for growing vegetables, fruits or flowers.

I say, do you really think the readers of urg don't know what an allotment
is?

Allotment holders take it very seriously when it comes to cultivating
and planting on there rented land.

Of course. As serious as any other serious gardener does. What makes you
think that urglers thought otherwise?

In our local allotment in Torquay we are always exchanging old and new
ideas, like many im sure.

Of course. And if they were discussed in urg you would see interesting
threads develop, with much by way of new input from other allotment holders
and indeed other other gardeners. "Other" gardeners do often know something
worth knowing.

It's a very close community and so will uk.rec.gardening.allotments.

You are talking boloney. It might be that you personally belong to some
clique or other, but I had, before my retirement, a number of friends who
were devoted allotment holders. They did most certainly not belong to some
secret society. We all spent happy hours in the common room discussing
gardening questions. Yes, in case you did not know, allotment holders are
gardeners.

Where we can discuss "Rent" "Council Rent" Local Meets" "Seeds"
"Cultivation Methods" "Local Plots Up For Rent" "Bulk Seed Suppliers"
"New Products on the market", that to only mention a few ideas.

Not one of these items are forbidden in urg, and except for "Local Plots Up
For Rent", topics very closely related to the ones you mention have been
discussed in urg. I see no reason why that should not also be mentioned in
urg, as long as the poster adheres to our principle that an urgler should
not put a personal; *advertisement* in the ng more frequently than once a
month.

Yes, People may well post in urg as well as
uk.rec.gardening.allotments
but we all don't only shop at Sainburys.

That's tough luck on you. But more to the point: That is hardly a remark
which is relevant to the present issue.

I hope this proposed new group brings Allotments holders together,
I truly think it will!

You don't appear to have succeeded so far, and if your present post is an
example of how well you can conduct a hustings, you will not succeed at all.
Do you realise that you have not produced a solitary argument in favour of
your very divisive proposal?

Franz

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:19:19 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

I really don't see a problem letting us Allotment people get on with
trying to form our own "corner of the room" to talk about all things
Allotments.

How very divisive and exclusive that sounds.

Janet

So come and join us. You'll be welcome.

The point is that we are joined.

--
Martin