1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

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

I see nothing relating to the allotments issue in
uk.net.news.config.
What date and what title should I see?

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup
uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Ah. Too late, I see.


Too late? The voting has only just started...

How can it have started if I have not yet seen any reference
whatsoever to
this in ok.net.news.config?

Franz

I don't know precisely why you haven't seen it but the call for
votes
was cross posted to the various groups rather than (as is implied in
the
message) being posted to each group individually. Maybe you filter
crossposts?

No, I don't.
I guess I will just have to wait for a day or two to see what gives.
How long is the voting period likely to last?

Franz



According to the voting rules, between 18 and 28 days.

From the call for votes :-

"To receive a ballot paper, you must send an email to the Ballot
Request Address, which is xurga at request.ukvoting.org.uk."

Regards

Neil

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

Hi urg

What will I gain with reference to a proposed newsgroup urga?
Well, What I will gain (and others) is bringing people together that rent or
even own Allotments This might include, crop rotation, raised bed issues,
local meetings, Club AGM's ECT, ECT... Will we discuss Fruit trees? or when
to plant tomato plants? Well, Yes, Sometimes, but isn't that what urg
newsgroup is for? I don't want to take that away from an excellent
gardening newsgroup such as urg, but there are other discussions and issues
that can be held in urga.


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


Who gives someone the right to object to such a group when it can benefit
all of us?



Regards



Gary Poston

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

The message
from "Gary Poston" contains these words:


Who gives someone the right to object to such a group when it can benefit
all of us?

You haven't shown any benefit for uk.rec.gardening, only the
disadvantage of losing allotment posts.

Janet.

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:


"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.

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?


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

"Charter of uk.rec.gardening
(Not Moderated)
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?

Unless allotment gardening is not actually concerned with gardening in the
UK, surely it is unnecessary to read lower down than the very first sentence
in urg's charter.

Franz

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

"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

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:


"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.

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?


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

"Charter of uk.rec.gardening
(Not Moderated)
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?

Unless allotment gardening is not actually concerned with gardening in the
UK, surely it is unnecessary to read lower down than the very first sentence
in urg's charter.

Franz

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
 

"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