On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:31:37 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors?

and my news server, I cancelled that one.
--

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

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:31:37 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors?

and my news server, I cancelled that one.
--

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

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:31:37 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors?

and my news server, I cancelled that one.
--

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

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:31:37 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors?

and my news server, I cancelled that one.
--

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

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:
To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include
flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants,
beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location,
situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses,
cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests &
diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list."

Which part of "This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." do you
find difficult to understand? Are you sure your read the charter?

So the word allotment is NOT specified!

Allotments are a gardening issue relevant to the UK. The term isn't
specified, and the list was "not exhaustive", because to list every
relevant gardening issue would take pages. The list also doesn't mention
fertiliser, seeds, sheds, climate, or weather, but I hardly think a
sensible person would claim that since those words weren't specified,
they are offtopic in urg.

Janet

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:
To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include
flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants,
beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location,
situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses,
cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests &
diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list."

Which part of "This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." do you
find difficult to understand? Are you sure your read the charter?

So the word allotment is NOT specified!

Allotments are a gardening issue relevant to the UK. The term isn't
specified, and the list was "not exhaustive", because to list every
relevant gardening issue would take pages. The list also doesn't mention
fertiliser, seeds, sheds, climate, or weather, but I hardly think a
sensible person would claim that since those words weren't specified,
they are offtopic in urg.

Janet

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


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.

Your impression was mistaken, sorry.

(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

In that case Franz should have said PAST threads, but as usual he was having
trouble making sense!

Sigh. Not very far past; this week. I hope we can agree that this
week's posts are current ones? I said "saw" because I'd already deleted
them; otherwise I'd have given you the thread-headers. (I hope you're
doing something useful with all these split hairs btw..knitting a little
scarf for actionman, or summat).

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

That's fine :-)

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.

I have read every post, and I honestly don't think any rational
contributors are chasing "selfish goals". The problems I foresee have
happened to other groups that split.

Janet.

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


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.

Your impression was mistaken, sorry.

(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

In that case Franz should have said PAST threads, but as usual he was having
trouble making sense!

Sigh. Not very far past; this week. I hope we can agree that this
week's posts are current ones? I said "saw" because I'd already deleted
them; otherwise I'd have given you the thread-headers. (I hope you're
doing something useful with all these split hairs btw..knitting a little
scarf for actionman, or summat).

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

That's fine :-)

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.

I have read every post, and I honestly don't think any rational
contributors are chasing "selfish goals". The problems I foresee have
happened to other groups that split.

Janet.

Just to throw my tuppence worth in at this late stage...

Allotments *are* covered by URG. If you argue they aren't either implicitly
or explicitly then uk.rec.gardening.allotments has no business being a
subgroup of uk.rec.gardening

However, they are a specialist interest and I see no reason why anyone who
wants to can't be allowed to have a quiet corner to discuss them in, away
from the hussle and bussle which makes up the rest of the group. Anyone who
wants to listen in can subscribe as well.

The only two objections I've heard are that crossposting will cause problems
due to increased traffic, and that the group will be so under-used it will
fall into disuse and be killed. These are logically opposed arguments.
Either it is a problem because it is high traffic or because it is low
traffic - not both.

If it withers and dies then what was all the fuss about?
If on the other hand it grows then its formation was completely justified.
And to anyone worried about the crossposting, lets just ask urga not to do
it, and if it does, just set up your filters to filter the crossposts out.

For what it's worth, I voted YES.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:
To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include
flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants,
beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location,
situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses,
cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests &
diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list."

Which part of "This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." do you
find difficult to understand? Are you sure your read the charter?

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'.

Just to throw my tuppence worth in at this late stage...

Allotments *are* covered by URG. If you argue they aren't either implicitly
or explicitly then uk.rec.gardening.allotments has no business being a
subgroup of uk.rec.gardening

However, they are a specialist interest and I see no reason why anyone who
wants to can't be allowed to have a quiet corner to discuss them in, away
from the hussle and bussle which makes up the rest of the group. Anyone who
wants to listen in can subscribe as well.

The only two objections I've heard are that crossposting will cause problems
due to increased traffic, and that the group will be so under-used it will
fall into disuse and be killed. These are logically opposed arguments.
Either it is a problem because it is high traffic or because it is low
traffic - not both.

If it withers and dies then what was all the fuss about?
If on the other hand it grows then its formation was completely justified.
And to anyone worried about the crossposting, lets just ask urga not to do
it, and if it does, just set up your filters to filter the crossposts out.

For what it's worth, I voted YES.

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:
To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include
flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants,
beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location,
situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses,
cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests &
diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list."

Which part of "This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." do you
find difficult to understand? Are you sure your read the charter?

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'.

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
You have quoted 126 lines to post three. Please trim.
That Better?
And you obviously don't spend much time in here these days
Nope I'm usually out in the garden or at work. Fair point. I'm only dropping
in to these long threads cos I'm off with flu and can't do either of the
above.
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.

Well I've only seen that kind of comment so far. Anyway maybe I was tring to
be too subtle (DOH ;0)) but the length of the IMHO off-topic threads was
part of my argument!
Anne

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
You have quoted 126 lines to post three. Please trim.
That Better?
And you obviously don't spend much time in here these days
Nope I'm usually out in the garden or at work. Fair point. I'm only dropping
in to these long threads cos I'm off with flu and can't do either of the
above.
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.

Well I've only seen that kind of comment so far. Anyway maybe I was tring to
be too subtle (DOH ;0)) but the length of the IMHO off-topic threads was
part of my argument!
Anne

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

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.
I think I do! Trolls have various definitions and roles. Try this:
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html
or this
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors?

Sure if they're Felco I wouldn't say no.
Anne

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

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.
I think I do! Trolls have various definitions and roles. Try this:
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html
or this
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

Would you like me to send you a pair of scissors?

Sure if they're Felco I wouldn't say no.
Anne

"Janet Baraclough .." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:
It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it
again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous
paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context
or alter intended meaning.

Yes I realise it was your post Janet, and your answer was in reply to my
reply to Franz, if you see what I mean
But what I was saying was that to cut the sentence before the full stop did,
in my opinion, alter the meaning.


SNIP quote of urg
charter).......................................... ........................

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.


(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

In that case Franz should have said PAST threads, but as usual he was having
trouble making sense!

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.

Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the
Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an
empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available
elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is
on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims
to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been
long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make
use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters.

Thank You. At last a proper answer.

I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate
as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the
new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter.

If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group
within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an
alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of
that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons.

Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-)

Janet

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.

Regards
Anthony