"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

"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

"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 29 Jan 2004 Pete Fenelon wrote in
:

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.

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.

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

On 29 Jan 2004 Pete Fenelon wrote in
:

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.

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.

--
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:

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.


Yes, I agree with you there.

However - let's be realistic here - a proponent well-known in unn* always
carries a reputation around, and will attract a certain number of pro/anti
votes. The culture here is now very much "play the man not the ball"...
and there is not much that can be done to change that beyond an appeal
to common-sense, which does often seem to be removed and hung neatly by
the door when people enter unn*.

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

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

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.


Yes, I agree with you there.

However - let's be realistic here - a proponent well-known in unn* always
carries a reputation around, and will attract a certain number of pro/anti
votes. The culture here is now very much "play the man not the ball"...
and there is not much that can be done to change that beyond an appeal
to common-sense, which does often seem to be removed and hung neatly by
the door when people enter unn*.

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

On 29 Jan 2004 Pete Fenelon wrote in
:

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.

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.

--
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:

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.


Yes, I agree with you there.

However - let's be realistic here - a proponent well-known in unn* always
carries a reputation around, and will attract a certain number of pro/anti
votes. The culture here is now very much "play the man not the ball"...
and there is not much that can be done to change that beyond an appeal
to common-sense, which does often seem to be removed and hung neatly by
the door when people enter unn*.

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

Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:18:00 uk.net.news.config
Pete Fenelon

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

OK I'll rephrase that. +12 means that you've got enough people to get a
viable group if people don't **** around with the voting system and use
it as it was intended and not as a way to score petty points.


Yes, I agree with you there.

Me too (Says Wm: more unn.* than urg nowadays but still caring)

However - let's be realistic here - a proponent well-known in unn* always
carries a reputation around, and will attract a certain number of pro/anti
votes. The culture here is now very much "play the man not the ball"...
and there is not much that can be done to change that beyond an appeal
to common-sense, which does often seem to be removed and hung neatly by
the door when people enter unn*.

I do hope you don't mean me. I was the proponent for the current urg
charter but am certainly not interfering and don't think unn.* has seen
this proponent before; and while we are at it urg hasn't seen this
person before.

Don't you think they should have raised it in the higher level group
*before* an RFD?

I have said I'll vote with most of the urg people.

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

In uk.net.news.config Wm... wrote:
I do hope you don't mean me. I was the proponent for the current urg
charter but am certainly not interfering and don't think unn.* has seen
this proponent before; and while we are at it urg hasn't seen this
person before.

No, I meant the general tone of unn*. Nothing personal at all - I didn't
know you ewre the proponent for urg, it's not a part of the hierarchy I
have any interest in!

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

Pete Fenelon wrote:

In uk.net.news.config Wm...
wrote:
I do hope you don't mean me. I was the proponent for the current
urg charter but am certainly not interfering and don't think unn.*
has seen this proponent before; and while we are at it urg hasn't
seen this person before.

No, I meant the general tone of unn*. Nothing personal at all - I
didn't know you ewre the proponent for urg, it's not a part of the
hierarchy I have any interest in!

Pete has an allotment in his beard...

--
Paul-B Reply-to address is spamtrap... use paul @ streetka dot biz
without the spaces

"Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote in message
...
In article ]

[snip]

I fully agree that urglers (what a weird name they call themselves:-)

Speak for yourself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

{:-))

[snip]

Franz

"Brian Watson" wrote in message
...

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.

But neither are issues relating to growing roses and growing cacti in a
greenhouse. Both these and allotment issues find a comfortable home in URG.

Franz

"Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote in message
...
In article ]

[snip]

I fully agree that urglers (what a weird name they call themselves:-)

Speak for yourself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

{:-))

[snip]

Franz