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."

In message , Brian Watson
writes

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.

Well that would be a very strange view IMO. Ok there maybe issues to do
with allotments that don't not apply to people gardening at home. But I
would imagine most things would be related to the actual growing of
things, which is what most of urg is about.

Anyway, I can't say anyone who has expressed an opinion on this has
expressed that view anyway AFAICS.. This RFD seems to have come out of
the ether, without any sort of prior discussion or mention on urg.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

In article ]
"Wm..." writes:

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.

Sigh! I was referring to the charter for urg.allotments.

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 fully agree that urglers (what a weird name they call themselves:-)
have no need to read all of unnc, provided that the relevant discussion
on the RFD for urga is cross-posted to urg and unnc.

[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 seem to have misunderstood entirely just WHAT cross-posting I was
suggesting should be prohibited.

I meant that, once urga were created (if it is), articles should NOT be
cross-posted to both it and urg: traffic on-topic in one is unlikely to
be on-topic in the other. Those who have interest in both allotments and
the wider gardening arena should subscribe to, and read, both groups.
Those interested in gardening, but not allotments, ought to be able to
read urg without having extraneous traffic posted in from urga; and,
indeed, vice-versa.

Re-read what I said (above) about uk.telecom and ut.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.

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.

I don't think that you properly read what I wrote: you took it in the
context of your own admonition (to the regulars of urg) not to subscribe
to unnc (an opinion with which I have some sympathy).

Sorry, but that is my opinion

Mine too; but please review my thoughts.

--
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

On Thursday, in article

"Brian Watson" wrote:

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.

Possibly _some_ (number unquantified) maybe searching for allotment newsgroup
and not think of looking at gardening newsgroups, similar to finding good books
on allotments and vegtable/fruit growing are few and far between, amongst the
plethora of other gardening books, which may or may not contain anything
useful on crops.

--
Paul Carpenter |
http://www.pcserv.demon.co.uk/ Main Site
http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/ GNU H8 & mailing list info.
http://www.readingsme.org.uk/ Reading SME Business Club info
http://www.badweb.org.uk/ For those web sites you hate.

In article , Jaques d'Alltrades
writes
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.

So why is the new group needed? Should the guy be thinking of a new
group, not for allotments, but for allotment administration? ;-)
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article ], Wm... -
not-spam.me.uk writes

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

Can you expand on that?

Atm, I can't see any reason for the new group. But I can't see any harm
to urg if it is created. Is the creation of this new group likely to
impact in any way on urg?

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In message , Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
writes

snip

I meant that, once urga were created (if it is), articles should NOT be
cross-posted to both it and urg: traffic on-topic in one is unlikely to
be on-topic in the other.

snip

I would expect exactly the opposite, I would expect a lot, possibly the
majority of the traffic on the proposed urga group (if it was to have
any life in it) to be about growing fruit and veg, equipment ,
techniques etc. these are not specific to allotments and would be
totally on topic on urg. hence possibly liable to crossposting.

Allotment specific stuff (such as administration, security, dealing
with Local councils, provision, etc.) would I suspect be the minority



--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

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.


will he, nil he?
--
John Briggs

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:185314 uk.net.news.config:127395

I noticed that Message-ID:
from John Briggs
contained the following:

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.


will he, nil he?

will 'e, nil 'e
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

"Christopher Norton" wrote in message
...
The message
from Chris French and Helen Johnson
contains these words:

In message , martin
writes
----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.gardening.allotments Allotments holders group


snip

Yes, it's here on my machine - right next to yours in fact.

Can't say i see any need for it though
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

I saw the original post too. Not overly sure that an allotment only one
would be of greatest use. But then it would certainly be added to the
list I take.

In which case, since it is quite certain that before long everything in the
new group will be crossposted to urg, you will have an extra load of
duplicated threads to cope with.

Franz

"Aphodius" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

I agree with Mike. What conceivable reason could there be for opposing
it?
---
None at all, a good idea. I live in an area well supplied with allotments,
indeed they are so popular here that most secretaries have waiting lists
for
plots. However, I don't see that many postings to this group from the
allotment holding fraternity.

I'll tell you something: There won't be many postings to the proposed new
group either. It just happens that the number of allotment gardeners is
minute in comparison with the totality of all gardeners.
If it comes into being at all, it will become moribund in less than a year.

Perhaps if they had their own newsgroup,
experienced allotment gardeners might be encouraged to use it helping and
advising those who have newly started on a great pastime.

Nothing stops them doing that in urg.

Franz

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Christopher Norton" wrote in message
...
The message
from Chris French and Helen Johnson
contains these words:

In message , martin
writes
----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.gardening.allotments Allotments holders group


snip

Yes, it's here on my machine - right next to yours in fact.

Can't say i see any need for it though
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

I saw the original post too. Not overly sure that an allotment only one
would be of greatest use. But then it would certainly be added to the
list I take.

When I got on line a couple of years ago, I was astonished to find that
there wasn't a specific allotment group, especially considering some of
the
narrow interest groups which are represented.

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.

My allotment is about three times the size of my front and back gardens
combined, so my main interest is in allotment gardening, although we do
use
the allotment for producing cut flowers for the home and various other
aspects of gardening rather than strictly allotmenteering.

I look forward to its creation.

What would be discussed there which could not equally well be discussed in
urg?

Franz

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:57:53 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


But AIUI, allotments are under some pressure from councils in various
parts
of the country and having a focused computer group might assist them in
sustaining their interest that can press right back.

Nothing whatever stops them fighting their case from within the threads of
urg.

Looking at the way a similar RFD went, the group will be created and
it will be unused even by the person, who produced the RFD.
--
Martin

"Christopher Norton" wrote in message
...
The message
from Chris French and Helen Johnson
contains these words:

In message , martin
writes
----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.gardening.allotments Allotments holders group


snip

Yes, it's here on my machine - right next to yours in fact.

Can't say i see any need for it though
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

I saw the original post too. Not overly sure that an allotment only one
would be of greatest use. But then it would certainly be added to the
list I take.

In which case, since it is quite certain that before long everything in the
new group will be crossposted to urg, you will have an extra load of
duplicated threads to cope with.

Franz

"Aphodius" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

I agree with Mike. What conceivable reason could there be for opposing
it?
---
None at all, a good idea. I live in an area well supplied with allotments,
indeed they are so popular here that most secretaries have waiting lists
for
plots. However, I don't see that many postings to this group from the
allotment holding fraternity.

I'll tell you something: There won't be many postings to the proposed new
group either. It just happens that the number of allotment gardeners is
minute in comparison with the totality of all gardeners.
If it comes into being at all, it will become moribund in less than a year.

Perhaps if they had their own newsgroup,
experienced allotment gardeners might be encouraged to use it helping and
advising those who have newly started on a great pastime.

Nothing stops them doing that in urg.

Franz