In article
"jane" writes:

A lottie subgroup would probably be a very low volume group, and most
of the posts would probably get crossposted to urg in any case, to
catch folk who didn't sub to the new group.

This is something that should be addressed in the group's charter, if it
is created: cross-posts to the sub-group AND the parent group ought to be
banned very specifically. (Says he, who regularly suffers postings from
idiots who think their chit-chat about mobile telephony is welcome in
uk.telecom as well as in uk.telecom.mobile.)

You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.
Something on-topic in a sub-group is rarely appropriate to the parent:
after all, the latter has cast off its off-spring to make its own way in
the world.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the
proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

If so, why?

There have been numerous posters on this newsgroup who have asked advice
because they are new allotment holders. urg has a very knowledgeable
subscriber base

Yes. Their questions and the ensuing discussions have been most
interesting.

and I feel that some of the newbie allotment holders may
feel a little intimidated by the skills shown here and might not wish to
ask
what might be a serious question to them,

You have just admitted that "There have been numerous posters on this
newsgroup who have asked advice because they are new allotment holders.
urg
has a very knowledgeable subscriber base", so what stops these newbies of
which you speak from asking their questions, like I do when I feel
ignorant
about something?

but feel it is trivial to the more
skilled subscriber and fail to ask.

That is a totally unwarranted feeling.

I feel that this newsgroup should encourage an allotment newsgroup and
make
sure that any new allotment holder is made aware of it in a very helpful
way
and not a case of 'There's a newsgroup for you lot, ask your question
there,
newbie' Who knows, someone here might just even be an advisor for that
newsgroup as well, is there any harm in that?

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the
essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of
separate
groups.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

Franz

Are you so worried that URG is so weak not to be able to stand some people
moving to another group?
I just CANNOT understand why you should feel so upset about this proposed
group.
To encourage others to 'hasten its demise'?
What are you on Franz? Double the dose, quickly!!!!
The quotes in this thread about Urg's charter, show that allotments are not
specifically INCLUDED, this alone may
may be why people see a need for a new group. Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.
I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

Anthony

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:

I don't see a conflict. I shall subscribe to it, assuming it comes into
existence, and I do not doubt that it will. I shall still subscribe to URG
and indeed to rec. gardens. edible I shall try to avoid crossposting,
although I have to admit I sometimes click on reply to group without
noticing the OP was crossposted.

Oh. Doesn't OE default to not crossposting unless told to?

Silly question, on reflection.

--
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 contains these words:

snipped

~so why should it matter to URG if someone wants to discuss
~allotments separately?
~
~because no cogent argument is being made in the (very badly written)
~RFD to justify one. In creating a new group the case needs to be
~proved 'why', not 'why not'
~
~hth Derek

I see the points of those folk wondering why on earth we would want to
oppose a motion. I do not object to this motion per se - just don't
think it's necessary!
I've seen a group break off a uk.x group before, stay broken off for
a couple of years or so and then get remerged by the net watchdogs
because of the very low posting frequencies.

One idea that came out of this re-merger was to put [subject] on a
post, so as to note the posts which would otherwise have gone into the
subgroup.

Perhaps all that is needed here is to do likewise - the subject could
be [allotment] to distinguish it from an ornamental [garden] query or
[houseplants] query or [trees] etc.

That's all very well for those who go online to chooses and to download
news, but those who have an offline reader of the type used by a lot of
ISPs gets everything posted in a subscribed-to group, will he, nil he.

There's also the matter that smaller groups may not be taken by all
newsfeeds, so posts invariably wind up on the main group anyway!

Just another thought to throw into the murk... :-)

Having a dedicated allotment newsgroup might do something to arrest the
decline in local authority provision of allotments.

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

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the
proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

If so, why?

There have been numerous posters on this newsgroup who have asked advice
because they are new allotment holders. urg has a very knowledgeable
subscriber base

Yes. Their questions and the ensuing discussions have been most
interesting.

and I feel that some of the newbie allotment holders may
feel a little intimidated by the skills shown here and might not wish to
ask
what might be a serious question to them,

You have just admitted that "There have been numerous posters on this
newsgroup who have asked advice because they are new allotment holders.
urg
has a very knowledgeable subscriber base", so what stops these newbies of
which you speak from asking their questions, like I do when I feel
ignorant
about something?

but feel it is trivial to the more
skilled subscriber and fail to ask.

That is a totally unwarranted feeling.

I feel that this newsgroup should encourage an allotment newsgroup and
make
sure that any new allotment holder is made aware of it in a very helpful
way
and not a case of 'There's a newsgroup for you lot, ask your question
there,
newbie' Who knows, someone here might just even be an advisor for that
newsgroup as well, is there any harm in that?

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the
essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of
separate
groups.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

Franz

Are you so worried that URG is so weak not to be able to stand some people
moving to another group?
I just CANNOT understand why you should feel so upset about this proposed
group.
To encourage others to 'hasten its demise'?
What are you on Franz? Double the dose, quickly!!!!
The quotes in this thread about Urg's charter, show that allotments are not
specifically INCLUDED, this alone may
may be why people see a need for a new group. Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.
I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

Anthony

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the
proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

If so, why?

There have been numerous posters on this newsgroup who have asked advice
because they are new allotment holders. urg has a very knowledgeable
subscriber base

Yes. Their questions and the ensuing discussions have been most
interesting.

and I feel that some of the newbie allotment holders may
feel a little intimidated by the skills shown here and might not wish to
ask
what might be a serious question to them,

You have just admitted that "There have been numerous posters on this
newsgroup who have asked advice because they are new allotment holders.
urg
has a very knowledgeable subscriber base", so what stops these newbies of
which you speak from asking their questions, like I do when I feel
ignorant
about something?

but feel it is trivial to the more
skilled subscriber and fail to ask.

That is a totally unwarranted feeling.

I feel that this newsgroup should encourage an allotment newsgroup and
make
sure that any new allotment holder is made aware of it in a very helpful
way
and not a case of 'There's a newsgroup for you lot, ask your question
there,
newbie' Who knows, someone here might just even be an advisor for that
newsgroup as well, is there any harm in that?

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the
essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of
separate
groups.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

Franz

Are you so worried that URG is so weak not to be able to stand some people
moving to another group?
I just CANNOT understand why you should feel so upset about this proposed
group.
To encourage others to 'hasten its demise'?
What are you on Franz? Double the dose, quickly!!!!
The quotes in this thread about Urg's charter, show that allotments are not
specifically INCLUDED, this alone may
may be why people see a need for a new group. Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.
I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

Anthony

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the
proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

If so, why?

There have been numerous posters on this newsgroup who have asked advice
because they are new allotment holders. urg has a very knowledgeable
subscriber base

Yes. Their questions and the ensuing discussions have been most
interesting.

and I feel that some of the newbie allotment holders may
feel a little intimidated by the skills shown here and might not wish to
ask
what might be a serious question to them,

You have just admitted that "There have been numerous posters on this
newsgroup who have asked advice because they are new allotment holders.
urg
has a very knowledgeable subscriber base", so what stops these newbies of
which you speak from asking their questions, like I do when I feel
ignorant
about something?

but feel it is trivial to the more
skilled subscriber and fail to ask.

That is a totally unwarranted feeling.

I feel that this newsgroup should encourage an allotment newsgroup and
make
sure that any new allotment holder is made aware of it in a very helpful
way
and not a case of 'There's a newsgroup for you lot, ask your question
there,
newbie' Who knows, someone here might just even be an advisor for that
newsgroup as well, is there any harm in that?

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the
essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of
separate
groups.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

Franz

Are you so worried that URG is so weak not to be able to stand some people
moving to another group?
I just CANNOT understand why you should feel so upset about this proposed
group.
To encourage others to 'hasten its demise'?
What are you on Franz? Double the dose, quickly!!!!
The quotes in this thread about Urg's charter, show that allotments are not
specifically INCLUDED, this alone may
may be why people see a need for a new group. Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.
I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

Anthony

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the
proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

If so, why?

There have been numerous posters on this newsgroup who have asked advice
because they are new allotment holders. urg has a very knowledgeable
subscriber base

Yes. Their questions and the ensuing discussions have been most
interesting.

and I feel that some of the newbie allotment holders may
feel a little intimidated by the skills shown here and might not wish to
ask
what might be a serious question to them,

You have just admitted that "There have been numerous posters on this
newsgroup who have asked advice because they are new allotment holders.
urg
has a very knowledgeable subscriber base", so what stops these newbies of
which you speak from asking their questions, like I do when I feel
ignorant
about something?

but feel it is trivial to the more
skilled subscriber and fail to ask.

That is a totally unwarranted feeling.

I feel that this newsgroup should encourage an allotment newsgroup and
make
sure that any new allotment holder is made aware of it in a very helpful
way
and not a case of 'There's a newsgroup for you lot, ask your question
there,
newbie' Who knows, someone here might just even be an advisor for that
newsgroup as well, is there any harm in that?

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the
essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of
separate
groups.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

Franz

Are you so worried that URG is so weak not to be able to stand some people
moving to another group?
I just CANNOT understand why you should feel so upset about this proposed
group.
To encourage others to 'hasten its demise'?
What are you on Franz? Double the dose, quickly!!!!
The quotes in this thread about Urg's charter, show that allotments are not
specifically INCLUDED, this alone may
may be why people see a need for a new group. Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.
I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

Anthony

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:

I don't see a conflict. I shall subscribe to it, assuming it comes into
existence, and I do not doubt that it will. I shall still subscribe to URG
and indeed to rec. gardens. edible I shall try to avoid crossposting,
although I have to admit I sometimes click on reply to group without
noticing the OP was crossposted.

Oh. Doesn't OE default to not crossposting unless told to?

Silly question, on reflection.

--
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 "shazzbat" contains these words:

I don't see a conflict. I shall subscribe to it, assuming it comes into
existence, and I do not doubt that it will. I shall still subscribe to URG
and indeed to rec. gardens. edible I shall try to avoid crossposting,
although I have to admit I sometimes click on reply to group without
noticing the OP was crossposted.

Oh. Doesn't OE default to not crossposting unless told to?

Silly question, on reflection.

--
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 "shazzbat" contains these words:

I don't see a conflict. I shall subscribe to it, assuming it comes into
existence, and I do not doubt that it will. I shall still subscribe to URG
and indeed to rec. gardens. edible I shall try to avoid crossposting,
although I have to admit I sometimes click on reply to group without
noticing the OP was crossposted.

Oh. Doesn't OE default to not crossposting unless told to?

Silly question, on reflection.

--
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 contains these words:

snipped

~so why should it matter to URG if someone wants to discuss
~allotments separately?
~
~because no cogent argument is being made in the (very badly written)
~RFD to justify one. In creating a new group the case needs to be
~proved 'why', not 'why not'
~
~hth Derek

I see the points of those folk wondering why on earth we would want to
oppose a motion. I do not object to this motion per se - just don't
think it's necessary!
I've seen a group break off a uk.x group before, stay broken off for
a couple of years or so and then get remerged by the net watchdogs
because of the very low posting frequencies.

One idea that came out of this re-merger was to put [subject] on a
post, so as to note the posts which would otherwise have gone into the
subgroup.

Perhaps all that is needed here is to do likewise - the subject could
be [allotment] to distinguish it from an ornamental [garden] query or
[houseplants] query or [trees] etc.

That's all very well for those who go online to chooses and to download
news, but those who have an offline reader of the type used by a lot of
ISPs gets everything posted in a subscribed-to group, will he, nil he.

There's also the matter that smaller groups may not be taken by all
newsfeeds, so posts invariably wind up on the main group anyway!

Just another thought to throw into the murk... :-)

Having a dedicated allotment newsgroup might do something to arrest the
decline in local authority provision of allotments.

--
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 "Wm..." contains these words:

unnc is *not* the place for innocents at the moment stick to the
threads crossposted by sensible people into urg is my advice and make
sure your opinion is crossposted to unnc.

Ooooh! I couldn't agree less! Innocents will very soon become
hardened-off and in some cases, have their skins chill-toughened.
There's a flock of magpies fouling the Usenet nest ATM: I just wish one
were permitted to feed them strychnine-laced eggs these days.....

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

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:49:21 uk.net.news.config
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}

In article
"jane" writes:

A lottie subgroup would probably be a very low volume group, and most
of the posts would probably get crossposted to urg in any case, to
catch folk who didn't sub to the new group.

This is something that should be addressed in the group's charter, if it
is created:

It is covered in the group's charter. This is one of those odd one's. I
was the proponent for the urg charter change and it happened. So
theoretically you have to argue with me and all of the people that that
voted for that. Or disagree.

cross-posts to the sub-group AND the parent group ought to be
banned very specifically. (Says he, who regularly suffers postings from
idiots who think their chit-chat about mobile telephony is welcome in
uk.telecom as well as in uk.telecom.mobile.)

In this case I think you are wrong. I think people in urg should be
able to see discussion in unnc without having to see the shit that unnc
currently contains.

[Brian *may* say that people who want to talk about a new group should
have to read al of unnc -- if so I think Brian should think again]

You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.
Something on-topic in a sub-group is rarely appropriate to the parent:
after all, the latter has cast off its off-spring to make its own way in
the world.

Ummm, Brian, I did the re-charter for urg a while back. I will be
taking some care about this and I don't think you have been thinking.
Sorry, but that is my opinion

--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:44:27
uk.net.news.config Jaques d'Alltrades


The message ]
from "Wm..." contains these words:

unnc is *not* the place for innocents at the moment stick to the
threads crossposted by sensible people into urg is my advice and make
sure your opinion is crossposted to unnc.

Ooooh! I couldn't agree less! Innocents will very soon become
hardened-off and in some cases, have their skins chill-toughened.
There's a flock of magpies fouling the Usenet nest ATM: I just wish one
were permitted to feed them strychnine-laced eggs these days.....

That is a troll, old friends.

I am asking urglers to look beyond that.

urgles; do your best to follow the discussion; it is your group after
all.

--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting