"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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:58:38 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

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

It can't possibly be less than the proponent has posted to urg so far.

Does he intend to lurk on the new group too, if it is created?
--
Martin

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

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?

I think urg benefits greatly from the contributions of
allotment-holders. They often grow as wide a range of plants as any home
gardener, and tend to be energetic, resourceful, experimental and
strongly interested in a wide range of gardening topics such as
greenhouses, irrigation, shedbuilding, security and recycling. Just the
kind of lively stimulating people that a gardening discussion group most
wants to attract and retain.

It could be a disadvantage to urg if newbies got the impression that
allotmenting and gardening are divided activities, or that urg is not
the right place to raise questions and ideas about allotments. We should
perhaps consider amending urg's charter to include allotments in the
range of topics discussed here.

Janet

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

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?

I think urg benefits greatly from the contributions of
allotment-holders. They often grow as wide a range of plants as any home
gardener, and tend to be energetic, resourceful, experimental and
strongly interested in a wide range of gardening topics such as
greenhouses, irrigation, shedbuilding, security and recycling. Just the
kind of lively stimulating people that a gardening discussion group most
wants to attract and retain.

It could be a disadvantage to urg if newbies got the impression that
allotmenting and gardening are divided activities, or that urg is not
the right place to raise questions and ideas about allotments. We should
perhaps consider amending urg's charter to include allotments in the
range of topics discussed here.

Janet

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

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?

I think urg benefits greatly from the contributions of
allotment-holders. They often grow as wide a range of plants as any home
gardener, and tend to be energetic, resourceful, experimental and
strongly interested in a wide range of gardening topics such as
greenhouses, irrigation, shedbuilding, security and recycling. Just the
kind of lively stimulating people that a gardening discussion group most
wants to attract and retain.

It could be a disadvantage to urg if newbies got the impression that
allotmenting and gardening are divided activities, or that urg is not
the right place to raise questions and ideas about allotments. We should
perhaps consider amending urg's charter to include allotments in the
range of topics discussed here.

Janet

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

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.

Cope with? Enjoy, Shirley?

--
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 Jaques d'Alltrades contains
these words:

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/

Unless the site has gone down the road of self management there`s really
not a lot of administrative stuff to think about.

Self management is another kettle of fish and I`d suspect that the ones
that have gone that way could teach us all a thing or two.

Geoff Berrow wrote:
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

Actually, no. That should be the obsolete English verb *nill*, rather than
the Latin 'nil' (a contraction of 'nihil', of course.)
--
John Briggs

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

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.

Cope with? Enjoy, Shirley?

--
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 Jaques d'Alltrades contains
these words:

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/

Unless the site has gone down the road of self management there`s really
not a lot of administrative stuff to think about.

Self management is another kettle of fish and I`d suspect that the ones
that have gone that way could teach us all a thing or two.

Geoff Berrow wrote:
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

Actually, no. That should be the obsolete English verb *nill*, rather than
the Latin 'nil' (a contraction of 'nihil', of course.)
--
John Briggs

The message
from Janet Baraclough .. contains
these words:

It could be a disadvantage to urg if newbies got the impression that
allotmenting and gardening are divided activities, or that urg is not
the right place to raise questions and ideas about allotments. We should
perhaps consider amending urg's charter to include allotments in the
range of topics discussed here.

I would support such an amendment.

--
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 Janet Baraclough .. contains
these words:

It could be a disadvantage to urg if newbies got the impression that
allotmenting and gardening are divided activities, or that urg is not
the right place to raise questions and ideas about allotments. We should
perhaps consider amending urg's charter to include allotments in the
range of topics discussed here.

I would support such an amendment.

--
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 "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

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.

Cope with? Enjoy, Shirley?

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