The message
from (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) contains these words:

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.

Apart from the purely administrative concerns of alottmenteers, I can't
think of much which wouldn't be on topic for both groups.

--
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 (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) contains these words:

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.

Apart from the purely administrative concerns of alottmenteers, I can't
think of much which wouldn't be on topic for both groups.

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

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Wm... wrote in
]:

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

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.

I think Brian is talking about crossposts between urg and the potential
urga, not crossposts between urg and unnc.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

"Wm..." wrote in message
]...

[snip]

...... the issue is "should the group be created" and "is
there a need for it" ?

OK. So you want it brief and without supporting arguments.
The answers are no and no.

Franz

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"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!!!!

I consider it a privilege to be able to use usenet and I am irrevocably
opposed to fouling it up with a quite unnecessary plethora of newsgroups
which will just become dormant within a few months.
This newly proposed group is quite precisely unnecessary because as true as
I am sitting here, anything in it of real interest will be crossposted to
urg.

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.

That is an idiotic response. The culture of Dahlias is also not
specifically INCLUDED in urg's charter

Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.

No, but wasting usenet resources is.

I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

You're welcome to vote whichever way you wish.
Are votes against it also counted? If so I put mine in that box.

Franz

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:


I consider it a privilege to be able to use usenet and I am
irrevocably opposed to fouling it up with a quite unnecessary
plethora of newsgroups which will just become dormant within a few
months.

In which case they will be visited by Dr Death in due course.

--
Paul-B Reply-to address is spamtrap... use paul @ streetka dot biz
without the spaces
Democracy in the USA - visit http://www.moveon.org

The message
from (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) contains these words:



You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.

Unworkable. Crossposting to a single other group with a common
interest is sometimes appropriate ,as in this discussion.

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.

In this instance, the proposed topic of the subgroup IS entirely
appropriate to uk.rec.gardening, and frequently discussed here.

Uk.rec.gardening is NOT a parent group trying to cast off an unweildy
subgroup. The proposal was made by someone who is not a visible user of
uk.rec.gardening.

Janet

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:34:05 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

The message
from (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) contains these words:

You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.

Unworkable. Crossposting to a single other group with a common
interest is sometimes appropriate , as in this discussion.

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.

In this instance, the proposed topic of the subgroup IS entirely
appropriate to uk.rec.gardening, and frequently discussed here.

Uk.rec.gardening is NOT a parent group trying to cast off an unweildy
subgroup. The proposal was made by someone who is not a visible user of
uk.rec.gardening.

nor was there any suggestion made on urg that a subgroup was necessary
or that allotment holders were being ignored.
--
Martin

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:34:05 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

The message
from (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) contains these words:

You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.

Unworkable. Crossposting to a single other group with a common
interest is sometimes appropriate , as in this discussion.

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.

In this instance, the proposed topic of the subgroup IS entirely
appropriate to uk.rec.gardening, and frequently discussed here.

Uk.rec.gardening is NOT a parent group trying to cast off an unweildy
subgroup. The proposal was made by someone who is not a visible user of
uk.rec.gardening.

nor was there any suggestion made on urg that a subgroup was necessary
or that allotment holders were being ignored.
--
Martin

On 29 Jan 2004 "Paul-B" wrote in
:

Franz Heymann wrote:


I consider it a privilege to be able to use usenet and I am
irrevocably opposed to fouling it up with a quite unnecessary
plethora of newsgroups which will just become dormant within a few
months.

In which case they will be visited by Dr Death in due course.

That is not a particuarly good basis for creating new groups.
rmgroups

a) Take work to collect stats
b) Take work to get throught the RFD process
c) Are not going to be effective everywhere leaving rogue groups
around that will have people wondering why they don't get replies.
(How many people can still get access to comp.lang.perl? It was
rmgrouped years a go.)

The protection against groups going dead is the +12 in a vote. By
ensuring that at least 12 people want the group enough to vote for it
you almost guarantee there is enough interest. (Within the Big 8 most
people seem to think that only about 1 in 5-10 people tat want the
group will vote. I've never heard stats in uk.* but I imagine they're
similar.)

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

In uk.net.news.config Graham Drabble wrote:

The protection against groups going dead is the +12 in a vote.

I cannot agree.

+12 means nothing. +12 says nothing about who will read or post to the
group, with many CFVs these days becoming a popularity contest based
upon who's spoken up for/against the group.

+50 might mean something, as at that level there wouldn't be enough
habitual kibitzers in uk.* to sway a vote either way - it would take
either a body of genuinely interested people or mass sockpuppetry to
sway a +50 vote

By
ensuring that at least 12 people want the group enough to vote for it
you almost guarantee there is enough interest.

No, you guarantee showboating in front of unnc.

pete
--
"there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:185263 uk.net.news.config:127288


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

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!!!!

I consider it a privilege to be able to use usenet and I am irrevocably
opposed to fouling it up with a quite unnecessary plethora of newsgroups
which will just become dormant within a few months.

What is your evidence for this assumption? Or can you read the future? If
so, got the winner of this years National?

This newly proposed group is quite precisely unnecessary because as true
as
I am sitting here, anything in it of real interest will be crossposted to
urg.

Why will it? When the discussion would strictly be OT for urg.

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.

That is an idiotic response. The culture of Dahlias is also not
specifically INCLUDED in urg's charter

A very idiotic answer, that would be covered by the discussion of flowers,
as you well realise.

Either way fear is no reason
to try and stop the formation of this proposed group.

No, but wasting usenet resources is.

What resources? When are they to be wasted and by what amount?
You don't have to subcribe to the proposed group, less to download,
therefore saving some 'resources'.

I for one will vote in favour of its formation, so thats 2 uk. gardening
groups I could subscribe to, wheres the problem?

You're welcome to vote whichever way you wish.
Are votes against it also counted? If so I put mine in that box.

Franz

Anthony

The message
from Molly Mockford contains these words:

I think Brian is talking about crossposts between urg and the potential
urga, not crossposts between urg and unnc.

That was my impression.

I can't see the point though, and it would be difficult to do more about
it than just to discourage.

--
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 Molly Mockford contains these words:

I think Brian is talking about crossposts between urg and the potential
urga, not crossposts between urg and unnc.

That was my impression.

I can't see the point though, and it would be difficult to do more about
it than just to discourage.

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

Green wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:34:05 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

Uk.rec.gardening is NOT a parent group trying to cast off an unweildy
subgroup. The proposal was made by someone who is not a visible user of
uk.rec.gardening.

nor was there any suggestion made on urg that a subgroup was necessary
or that allotment holders were being ignored.

No. I think it is that those who favour the proposition feel that allotment
issues are not synonymous with gardening issues.
--
Brian
"Stuck down a hole, in the fog, in the middle of the night, with an owl."