GardenBanter.co.uk - 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