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.

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.

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

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

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 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/

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:29 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

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.

I don't recommend it. Anybody with the slightest intelligence can
associate gardening with allotments. Why should we humour a lurker,
who has never posted here, who decides to split the group, without any
prior consultation and for no logical reason, other than that he can
lurk more easily? The whole thing is a ridiculous waste of time and
not far short of trolling.
--
Martin

The message
from "John Briggs" contains these words:
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.)

looks it up

Coo! You learn something new every day on the internet!

/up

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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:29 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

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.

I don't recommend it. Anybody with the slightest intelligence can
associate gardening with allotments. Why should we humour a lurker,
who has never posted here, who decides to split the group, without any
prior consultation and for no logical reason, other than that he can
lurk more easily? The whole thing is a ridiculous waste of time and
not far short of trolling.
--
Martin

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:29 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

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.

I don't recommend it. Anybody with the slightest intelligence can
associate gardening with allotments. Why should we humour a lurker,
who has never posted here, who decides to split the group, without any
prior consultation and for no logical reason, other than that he can
lurk more easily? The whole thing is a ridiculous waste of time and
not far short of trolling.
--
Martin

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"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

Nothing, especially as this NG has recently hosted long discussions on such
topics as the merits of various cross-channel ferries and driving standards,
but that is not the point. As someone has already pointed out, the number of
allotmenteers compared to the number of gardeners is minute. So presumably
that would include a lot of gardeners who would not be the slightest bit
interested in our discussions of varieties of carrot etc. They would
presumably not subscribe to the new group, although others would, even if
their interest in crops was minimal.

I see it as another(complimentary) forum rather than a rival.

Steve

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:29 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

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.

I don't recommend it. Anybody with the slightest intelligence can
associate gardening with allotments. Why should we humour a lurker,
who has never posted here, who decides to split the group, without any
prior consultation and for no logical reason, other than that he can
lurk more easily? The whole thing is a ridiculous waste of time and
not far short of trolling.
--
Martin