The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:

Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument
against the proposal.
I don't agree with it however
I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some
people seem to be
making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the
proposal for no other
reason than their own selfish goals.

Selfish? How?

--
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 "Anthony" contains
these words:

So the word allotment is NOT specified!
Have you read what you cut and pasted?
It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph.
You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each
of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by
your argument.

Most, or all of which have been discussed in urg in the past. We also
talk about ponds, woodland, bog-gardens, and a host of other subjects
which are not specified. Unlike you, I have collected urg on and off for
about seven years, and you'd be surprised at some of the subjects
discussed.

This is what 'this is not intended to be an ehaustive list' means.

It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an
exhaustive list'.

It rather depends on the angle of aproach.

--
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 "Anthony" contains
these words:

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Why did you waste bandwidth replying?

Why can't you both trim your posts?

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

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:36:15 -0000, "Anne Wheeldon"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are
a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the
original
and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original.

Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of
"good
for URG"

Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please.
What realistically do you think the harm would be?

Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg?
I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a
new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to
urg?
The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to
allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in
urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in
fact
discussed there.

That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter
and
understand it before talking such nonsense.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the
discussion
of allotments.

Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say
anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are
suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to
avert
our eyes when those topics crop up?

If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic.
I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it?

on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and
planning to their
hearts content.

Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning
to
their hearts content."
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past
and
now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting
up
of a breakaway group.

I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last
paragraph
spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy
the
whim
of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to
participate
in
the existing group.

Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new
group.

Why have you then written this particular note?

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose
just
because
the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should
lie.

The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to
prove
that more space
would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have
stated
that all posts to the
proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence
being cited.

You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence
have
accrued for an event in the future?
But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio
when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned.

Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of
evidence.

You are being needlessly repetitive.

The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think
that
some people are
frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some
way.
Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll
vote
mine.

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Franz

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.

I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening.
It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is
not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time.
--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression
that if a subject was not included it was off topic.

How? Have you been on Usenet long?

--
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 "Anthony" contains
these words:

Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument
against the proposal.
I don't agree with it however
I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some
people seem to be
making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the
proposal for no other
reason than their own selfish goals.

Selfish? How?

--
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 "Anthony" contains
these words:

So the word allotment is NOT specified!
Have you read what you cut and pasted?
It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph.
You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each
of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by
your argument.

Most, or all of which have been discussed in urg in the past. We also
talk about ponds, woodland, bog-gardens, and a host of other subjects
which are not specified. Unlike you, I have collected urg on and off for
about seven years, and you'd be surprised at some of the subjects
discussed.

This is what 'this is not intended to be an ehaustive list' means.

It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an
exhaustive list'.

It rather depends on the angle of aproach.

--
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 "Anne Wheeldon" contains these words:

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.

You have quoted 126 lines to post three. Please trim.

And you obviously don't spend much time in here these days or you would
have a more constructive view on Franz's posts.

He does have the unfortunate habit of rising to trolls though - and not
snipping.

--
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 "Anthony" contains
these words:

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Why did you waste bandwidth replying?

Why can't you both trim your posts?

--
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 "Anne Wheeldon" contains these words:

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.

You have quoted 126 lines to post three. Please trim.

And you obviously don't spend much time in here these days or you would
have a more constructive view on Franz's posts.

He does have the unfortunate habit of rising to trolls though - and not
snipping.

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

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:36:15 -0000, "Anne Wheeldon"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are
a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the
original
and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original.

Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of
"good
for URG"

Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please.
What realistically do you think the harm would be?

Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg?
I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a
new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to
urg?
The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to
allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in
urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in
fact
discussed there.

That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter
and
understand it before talking such nonsense.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the
discussion
of allotments.

Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say
anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are
suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to
avert
our eyes when those topics crop up?

If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic.
I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it?

on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and
planning to their
hearts content.

Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning
to
their hearts content."
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past
and
now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting
up
of a breakaway group.

I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last
paragraph
spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy
the
whim
of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to
participate
in
the existing group.

Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new
group.

Why have you then written this particular note?

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose
just
because
the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should
lie.

The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to
prove
that more space
would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have
stated
that all posts to the
proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence
being cited.

You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence
have
accrued for an event in the future?
But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio
when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned.

Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of
evidence.

You are being needlessly repetitive.

The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think
that
some people are
frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some
way.
Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll
vote
mine.

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Franz

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.

I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening.
It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is
not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time.
--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

In article , Anthony anthonyhughes@61
4kingsway.freeserve.co.uk writes

"So the word allotment is NOT specified!
Have you read what you cut and pasted?
It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph.
You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each
of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by
your argument. It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an
exhaustive list'.

We've certainly talked about cess pits. And buried cars. What to grow up
a telegraph pole would also be on topic.



--
Kay Easton

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

In article , Chris French
writes in reply to someone else

If it encourages new Allotment holders, SO BE IT!.

I doubt it would make any difference.

I imagine urga would be subscribed to only by existing allotmenteers,
and new allotment holders would be more likely to be converted from
existing gardeners seeing allotment posts in urg
--
Kay Easton

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

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression
that if a subject was not included it was off topic.

How? Have you been on Usenet long?

--
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 "Anthony" contains
these words:

Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument
against the proposal.
I don't agree with it however
I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some
people seem to be
making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the
proposal for no other
reason than their own selfish goals.

Selfish? How?

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